Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Defence Equipment Testing

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what testing of British defence equipment is routinely carried out in other countries; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The vast majority of routine testing of British defence equipment is carried out within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ainger: The Minister will be aware of the concern expressed by many organisations, individuals, local authorities and trade unions about the outcome of the director general's review of test and evaluation. Does he agree that it would be wholly unacceptable if a significant part—or any part—of test and evaluation currently undertaken at establishments in Essex, Dyfed and west Scotland were transferred to another country in Europe or North America? Can he assure the House that, whatever the outcome of the review, it will not mean any of that work being undertaken anywhere other than in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Aitken: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern as the Member of Parliament whose constituency contains Pendine. In our quest for value for money, we are currently considering a number of options on the future of test and evaluation sites, although Ministers have reached no decision. On the information available to my Department, the transfer to an overseas location of facilities at Pendine or any other establishment does not appear to be cost-effective.

Mr. John Marshall: Has my hon. Friend made any estimate of the amount of defence equipment testing that would be undertaken in Wales and elsewhere if the defence budget were cut by 25 per cent., as some hon. Members advocate?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend makes an entirely valid political point. If Labour or Liberal Democrat conference resolutions were implemented, test and evaluation establishments throughout the country would have not nearly enough work to survive.

Mr. Robertson: Will the Minister acknowledge that he has an unparalleled facility for testing and evaluating a wide range of weapons at the Royal Artillery range in the Hebrides? Will he ensure that the fullest possible use is made of those facilities by British companies and the British armed forces and encourage allied companies and armed forces also to take advantage of them?

Mr. Aitken: I am glad to pay tribute to the equipment, facilities and personnel at the Royal Artillery range in the Hebrides. I visited Benbecula and St. Kilda last summer and am well aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. I am all in favour of the artillery range seeking business from overseas Governments and companies—which takes place to some extent already.

Defence Equipment Exports

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of exports of defence equipment in 1993; and what was the percentage change on the previous year.

Mr. Aitken: Our latest estimates show that in 1993 we signed defence equipment export contracts worth more than £6 billion. That represents an increase of more than 15 per cent. on the 1992 figure and makes 1993 another record-breaking year for Britain's defence exports.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Britain's defence equipment manufacturers on their success in achieving dramatically increased exports—particularly Paxman Diesels in Colchester, which is currently seeking diesel engine contracts from Kuwait and Abu Dhabi? Will my hon. Friend ensure that his excellent Department and the Defence Export Services Organisation in particular continue to provide the necessary support to British manufacturers, so that they may continue to achieve record exports?

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to Britain's defence manufacturers, who deserve to be congratulated on an outstandingly good success story in British exports. I am also glad to pay tribute to Paxman Diesels in his constituency, which is part of GEC Alsthom. We are aware that that company is currently hoping to win major export contracts in Kuwait and Abu Dhabi. My Department—and, indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend and I—have given it every possible help in its battle for those orders.

Mr. Donald Anderson: However remarkable and buoyant defence sales currently are, is not it clear that, over the next few years, there will be a contraction both in the domestic market and in many of our overseas markets, with major regional and employment effects? That will clearly be a major national problem. Do the Government intend to sit back, fold their arms and leave it to the market—or do they intend, like the United States Government, to set up a special agency designed to help in that period of transition and seek to diversify into civilian use wherever practicable?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in sounding a note of lugubrious pessimism even though I am announcing some very good news. That is typical socialism. The Government do not have the slightest intention of sitting back or ceasing in the battle to win export orders for British companies. We hope to continue with some measure of success. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the likelihood is that, both at home and abroad, there will be some contraction of orders, but the recipe for solving the problem is not, as he suggests, to create a new Government quango like the Defence Conversion Agency; indeed, he may care to note that the current United States Secretary of Defence was recorded as saying that so far the whole process of the Defence Conversion Agency was "unblemished by success."

Defence Land Service

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been realised by the Defence Land Service from the sale of property in the last year for which figures are available.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): During the financial year 1992-93, which is the last full year for which figures are available, my Department realised some £68 million from the sale of land and buildings.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that the defence budget is to be held in actual terms over the next three years. Would it not be right to redeploy into the defence budget some of the capital receipts from sales of property so that we can have an increased defence budget to deal with inflationary increases? That would help to pay for front-line facilities for troops to deal with such threats as that displayed by the grizzly bear Zhirinovsky during his recent visit to Paris.

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right that sales of surplus land and buildings can be very valuable within the defence budget—indeed, that is our policy. We are looking at the sale of land and buildings, again under the defence cost studies, and in due course will announce the results to the House. We greatly value those receipts. We look to sell surplus property whenever possible, and co-operate with local authorities in that, too.

Mr. Tony Banks: So does the Minister have some sympathy with local authorities, which are sitting on some £5 billion-worth of accumulated capital receipts that the Government will not let them spend on services? While he is thinking of a miserable, pathetic, cringing answer to that question, may I also ask him how many vacant properties the Ministry of Defence currently holds that should be let to the homeless?

Mr. Hanley: The Ministry of Defence currently owns about 70,000 domestic residences, of which approximately 10,000 are vacant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".] The Opposition might prefer it if there were no homes to which our soldiers, sailors and airmen coming back from abroad could go. The Opposition might feel that the homes of service men do not deserve to be repaired or put into proper condition for letting and occupation. Perhaps they have been so long away from having to look after such property that they have lost all sense of reality.

Frigate Building and Design

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of time taken to design and build a modern frigate.

Mr. Aitken: Once an affordable operational requirement has been agreed, it takes between eight and 12 years to design and build a modern frigate, depending on the complexity and development programmes of the weapon equipments to be fitted. Follow-on vessels to an existing design take some four years to build.

Mr. Gill: Does not my hon. Friend's answer underline the fact that, to all intents and purposes, the only naval vessels that we shall have in any future conflict or war are those that are in the fleet at present?

Mr. Aitken: No, that is not correct. There is, for example, a continuous rolling programme of vessel replacement and vessel building. There are currently 37 destroyers and frigates in the fleet, but three new type 23 frigates will be accepted into the Navy this year. Three are under construction and we hope to issue an invitation to tender for the next batch later this year. From that simple summary, my hon. Friend will realise that, in the event of hostilities breaking out, we should quickly be able to strengthen the number of ships available to the fleet.

Mr. George: Is not it so long since the Royal Navy operated a large fleet that it has lost all touch with reality?

Mr. Aitken: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman, who is usually a staunch supporter of defence, suddenly indulge in knocking copy. Although the Royal Navy has, of course, reduced the size of its fleet since the days of the cold war, it remains one of the most powerful and effective maritime forces in the world. The fleet consists of some 122 ships, including, as I said, 37 destroyers and frigates, 20 submarines, 18 minehunters and three aircraft carriers, and other ships are under construction, including the landing platform helicopter ship. From that simple record, it is quite clear that the Royal Navy has not lost touch with reality.

Mr. Garnier: Can my hon. Friend tell me the equivalent time required by the Russian navy to build a modern frigate? Am I right in thinking that the Russians continue to build frigates and other front-line warships at an accelerating rate?

Mr. Aitken: The Russian shipyards are, indeed, continuing to build warships and submarines such as the Kilo submarine, some of which are being exported to countries such as Iran. I am afraid that I am not an expert on the time taken by Russian shipyards, but if Russian labour practices are anything to go by, they are considerably slower and less efficient than our own commendable yards.

Dogs

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on keeping dogs at Ministry of Defence establishments.

Mr. Hanley: More than 2,000 service dogs are kept at Ministry of Defence establishments worldwide. They provide valuable and cost-effective security. In addition, there are some dogs privately owned and kept at personal expense; if they are kennelled at Ministry of Defence establishments, their owners are charged for the use of any Ministry of Defence property.

Mr. Jamieson: Following his recent written answer to me, will the Minister confirm that the taxpayer is getting good value for money by subsidising dog kennels so that senior officers can go hunting during duty hours? In particular, will he confirm, following a written answer to me on 14 March, at column 520, that hunting with dogs promotes "good tactical… appreciation"? How can officers serving in the Navy use such tactical appreciation aboard Her Majesty's ships?

Mr. Hanley: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree; he clearly does not appreciate that the qualities expected in one force are usually expected

in all three and that military capability for a leading officer in the Royal Navy is just as great as that for such an officer in any of the forces. The forces share their expertise. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who has pursued this issue quite vigorously recently, that hunting never interferes with any military commitments. It is a legal sport and, while it remains legal, the Ministry of Defence will co-operate with those who wish to undertake it.

Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend will be aware that, immediately before Easter, a number of boxes of anti-personnel mines were lost from the testing station at Shoeburyness and washed up on the beaches of my constituency—

Madam Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a very good trier, and the Minister may have a reply, but that question does not relate to that on the Order Paper. Let us hear about dogs being washed up.

Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend have any plans to employ sniffer dogs to ensure that that will not happen again? If not, what action does he propose to take?

Mr. Hanley: There is no doubt that you, Madam Speaker, nearly smelt a rat on that one. My hon. Friend makes a good point because although the majority of dogs used by the Ministry of Defence are used for guarding, 355 are trained for specialist detection duties, which include arms and explosives searches, drugs detection and tracking. As to the event to which my hon. Friend referred, an urgent investigation is being carried out.

Nuclear Proliferation

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the military implications of nuclear proliferation.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The Government attach a high priority to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the United Kingdom will continue to contribute positively towards international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Mrs. Mahon: Which specific nuclear weapons have been dismantled and which are intended to be dismantled in the run-up to the renewal of the non-proliferation treaty?

Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has indicated a very substantial reduction in its nuclear weapon capability. For example, we have got rid of all nuclear tactical weapons. We have said that we shall not go forward with the original proposals for a sub-strategic nuclear capability, which will in future be based on our Trident facilities. We have also indicated that our Trident nuclear weapons will have an explosive yield comparable to that of Polaris. The United Kingdom can hold its head high on the basis of making a positive contribution to the reduction of nuclear weapons in the world.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Has my right hon. and learned Friend recently made an assessment of the reports of the proliferation of nuclear weapons going from the ex-Soviet Union to Iran? The disturbing events in the Crimea also seem to be related to rumours that nuclear weapons may be being traded through to the middle east or even used


internally in the Ukraine. Those reports are disturbing at this sensitive moment and I should therefore be grateful if the Secretary of State could clarify the issue.

Mr. Rifkind: There is no indication that either the Russian or the Ukraine Governments have been involved in any trading of that kind. With the very large number of weapons that exist in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union, it is possible that certain materials may have been offered or transferred. We have no hard evidence to support that proposition, but the situation certainly needs to be carefully monitored.

Mr. Llew Smith: While discussing the military implications of nuclear proliferation, will the Minister explain how the Government can support both the non-proliferation treaty and Trident?

Mr. Rifkind: The existing non-proliferation treaty recognises the position of those countries that are currently nuclear weapon states. We are a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, as are the United States and a number of other countries. We are all working together to ensure that the proliferation of nuclear weapons does not take place. In the real world, which may not be one with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, one has to take into account the historical fact that nuclear weapons currently exist.

United States Air Force

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an assessment of the United States air force's air base operations and related services in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hanley: The United States air force in the United Kingdom currently operates airfields at the three main operating bases of RAF Mildenhall, RAF Lakenheath and RAF Alconbury, and the standby deployment base of RAF Fairford. However, flying will cease at RAF Alconbury by the end of March 1995.

Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware that some 1,500 additional United States service personnel will be coming to RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath in my constituency during the course of the year? Is my hon. Friend aware of the extent to which my constituents welcome that, and of the fact that community relations in my constituency are considered to be the best in the world? Will my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the strong British-American link which for 50 years has served so well the cause of freedom and democracy?

Mr. Hanley: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's comments. It is true that the number of active duty service members in the Mildenhall and Lakenheath area is expected to increase from just over 6,000 to almost 8,500 by April 1995. Although that presence is welcome, it naturally brings with it pressures, especially on housing, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the direct efforts that he has been making with the United States embassy and with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that adequate housing is provided in due time.

Bosnia

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for the ultimate withdrawal of British troops from Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: There are at present no plans to withdraw the British contingent. The timing of its ultimate withdrawal will depend on progress towards an overall peace agreement and developments on the ground.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and I am sure that we all look forward to the ultimate withdrawal of troops from the former Yugoslavia. In the meantime, and in the light of the events of the past 48 hours, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that British troops will not be drawn further into the conflict but will continue to remain dedicated to their impartial peacekeeping role in the former Yugoslavia?

Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend says, it is, indeed, crucial that all United Nations forces recognise their non-partisan role. The recent decision of the UNPROFOR commander, General Rose, to ask for close air support was taken because of the threat faced by UN forces in Gorazde. It is also crucial that the existing mandate of UNPROFOR forces, including those from the United Kingdom, be sustained over the weeks and months to come.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will recall that when he recently announced the decision to send additional British troops to Bosnia, he also told the House of the successful diplomatic initiative at the United Nations which had resulted in promises of some 8,000 additional troops from other countries. Does he share the disappointment of many people that, because of the unwillingness of a number of United Nations members to meet their obligations to that organisation, the figure of 8,000 has had to be revised down to 3,500?

Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has fully complied with its commitments, and additional British forces are of course now serving in Bosnia, as are forces from several other countries. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, however, several of the countries that expressed a willingness to send troops have not yet done so. We very much hope that they will meet their commitments in the earliest possible time frame, because the success of General Rose's efforts, like that of the United Nations effort in general, depends on his having the forces available to carry out the important task with which the UN has entrusted him.

Dr. David Clark: Is the Secretary of State aware that when I led a small delegation of hon. Members from both sides of the House into Gorazde last September, we found only 11 UN soldiers guarding that 750 sq km enclave? The Opposition support the aerial intervention to protect the safe area, but does the Secretary of State share our belief that more ground troops are needed? Will he put pressure on our American allies to contribute some of those troops, and at the same time use his diplomatic skills to ensure that the Russians are not left out in the cold again?

Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of UN personnel in Gorazde is not to protect the city; there is a very small number of UN personnel there. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important for the UN to have the forces that it requires.


The United States has said that it would be prepared to provide ground forces in the event of a peaceful settlement in Bosnia. I shall be in the United States over the next few days and I am sure that I shall discuss these matters with my American colleagues.

Housing

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with local authorities about the transfer of Ministry of Defence housing.

Mr. Hanley: My Department has had discussions with local authorities on the leasing of properties that are not immediately needed for service families or that are awaiting sale.

Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister share the view of his ministerial predecessor, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), that it was rather a waste of time talking to local authorities, because they did not have the money to pay for the married quarters that they might wish to possess? Given that one in seven Ministry of Defence houses is vacant, and that the total is therefore far greater than the number needed for any returning service personnel, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be sensible for the two Departments to get together? Would not it be sensible for the Department of the Environment to ensure that capital receipts are available for local authorities to spend on married quarters so that they can purchase houses that the MOD wishes to sell and which the local authorities would like to possess?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman made several points, and I have sympathy with many of them. The Ministry of Defence is managing its housing estate. I said earlier that there are about 70,000 married quarters, of which about 10,000 are vacant. However, it should be remembered that most vacant properties are undergoing major works, many are being held for deployments, and many are already allocated to service families but have yet to be occupied. We have also been co-operating with the housing task force and trying to sell as many vacant properties as possible. We sold 2,000 vacant properties last year alone, and we intend to sell a further 5,000 over the next five years. We enter into discussion with local councils not only because we like to take their advice on what housing associations might be useful but because many of them are leasing properties from us on a short-term basis.

Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the local authority in Gosport, which I represent, has found the Ministry of Defence to be helpful and imaginative in its housing policy, as best exemplified perhaps by the recent Rowner Heights development? Does he agree that the transfer of MOD housing stock to the private sector should result in more efficient management and a reduction in the level of vacancy, which has so annoyed my constituents over the years?

Mr. Hanley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that in Gosport there has been a model of co-operation between the local authority and the Ministry of Defence. Indeed, returning service men are being housed properly. As for the housing trust to which my hon. Friend alludes, that has been welcomed by the housing task force and the report recently published by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and

Construction. Indeed, we look forward to the establishment of the housing trust so that the estate of MOD housing can be even better managed.

Dr. David Clark: Bearing in mind that the cost of an average house in the United Kingdom is £62,500, does the Minister consider that the price of £7,000 per house which he intends to offer the Ministry's housing to the housing trust is a fair deal to the taxpayer?

Mr. Hanley: I do not honestly believe that, when one is looking at the number of houses that we are talking about, and the people for whom the houses will be held, the hon. Gentleman is making a straight comparison. What he is doing is trying to deal with the 70,000 houses as though there was a bulk sale and exaggerating the price. It is a bulk sale, but it is for the benefit of people in the armed forces.

Royal Auxiliary Air Force

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in augmenting the strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force to compensate for cuts in the front line of the Royal Air Force imposed under "Options for Change".

Mr. Hanley: The strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force has increased from 262 in April 1979 to some 1,700 now. We keep the numbers under regular review. For instance, the reduction in the threat to United Kingdom home bases means that we will no longer require the four Royal Auxiliary Air Force defence flights formed to protect key points, but Royal Auxiliary Air Force personnel are now being given the opportunity to operate as an integral element of two regular RAF Regiment Rapier squadrons. We also intend to undertake trials of reservist aircrew for the first time on Hercules and Wessex aircraft.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the decision was taken under the "Options for Change" review, the air defence element of the Royal Air Force has reduced by some 30 per cent. and the strike attack element by some 40 per cent., and therefore the Royal Air Force is smaller but, effectively, weaker? As a consequence, could he increase significantly the reserve element by the creation of flying squadrons, as is so effectively done in the United States, Israeli and Swiss air forces?

Mr. Hanley: The answer to my hon. Friend's last point is that we will certainly look at that because there is a future for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I mentioned that the number had increased from 262 to some 1,700. Even before the removal of the four flights, that will still be an increase of up to 1,300 with possibly more increases to come. As for the RAF Regular Reserve, the number was 3,250 in 1979 and it is some 17,500 now.

Mr. Martlew: Is it not correct that in "Options for Change", the plan was to increase the number to 2,000? The Minister has announced that it is only 1,700 at present, so in fact there has been a reduction of 300. That is another idea of the Government's lack of clarity towards their armed forces. In 1983, it was announced that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and part of the Royal Air Force Voluntary Reserve would be amalgamated. There is a problem with that; to carry that out, we need primary legislation. Can the Minister guarantee that we will deal


with the Reserve Forces Bill next year in the House? Will that Bill include clauses that will allow the amalgamation to take place?

Mr. Hanley: As I have said—and the hon. Gentleman clearly heard me—we keep the numbers of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force under review. That means that occasionally there will be reductions if threats change, and there will be increases when new roles can be found. As for the Reserve Forces Act 1980, what the hon. Gentleman said is exactly the intention of the Ministry of Defence—to enact a change in the legislation next year.

Mr. Mans: In relation to the Royal Air Force Reserve, will my hon. Friend have discussions with his opposite number at the Home Office before any decisions are taken over the air cadet movement because of the great social good that that movement does in terms of providing useful occupations for youths and preventing them from going down the wrong road towards crime?

Mr. Hanley: Naturally, I agree that many benefits flow from joining up with the Territorial Army, or the reserves. Those to which my hon. Friend has pointed are just some of them. The defence of the realm must primarily take account of the needs of the kingdom to be defended. This is not a purely social service, but there are certainly social service benefits. Indeed, many benefits flow from military discipline.

Bosnia

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of United Kingdom forces required in Bosnia and the subsequent impact on other theatres of operation.

Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom currently has some 3,300 service men on the ground in the former Yugoslavia, with a further 3,000 deployed offshore and in Italy. Our contribution naturally takes into account our operational commitments elsewhere.

Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, can he assure the House that, with the overstretch in the emergency plot and the planned reductions, the United Kingdom will have sufficient forces in the years ahead to undertake its rightful peacekeeping role, maintain its presence in Northern Ireland and, at the same time, make provision for engagement in collective brigade and Army training?

Mr. Rifkind: It is our intention to meet all those commitments. Our plans envisage that the emergency tour interval will meet the target of some 24 months by the end of the draw-down period. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our commitment to Northern Ireland will be of the highest priority. We believe that the first obligation of our armed forces is the protection of the territory of the United Kingdom wherever a legitimate contribution can be made to that end.

Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that while we must indeed undertake our own role in overseas operations, this must not be done at the expense of operations in Northern Ireland? In particular, does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that there is a serious shortage of helicopter flying hours for

surveillance purposes? Surely it is essential that we demonstrate that we are absolutely resolute in countering terrorism in the Province.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct, but she should take into account the fact that there has been a massive increase in helicopter activity in Northern Ireland. Helicopters have been found to be a most valuable means of meeting our security commitments, and there has quite properly been a major deployment of helicopter assets in the Province. We shall continue to try to ensure that the availability of those assets is consistent with operational requirements.

Dr. Reid: At this critical juncture for our troops in the former Yugoslavia, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to lay to rest some of the fears that have been expressed both at home and abroad by assuring the House that the use of military force in Bosnia, under United Nations mandate, will continue to be related to specific achievable and impartial humanitarian objectives and that forces will not be allowed to stumble into an ill-considered partisan or futile intervention of a more general nature in that theatre?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, of course, it has been Her Majesty's Government's view, since the very beginning of this conflict, that crucial to the authority of the United Nations and its forces is the need for them to remain bipartisan in making a contribution at the humanitarian level and at the peacekeeping level so that the country may see the United Nations as the protector of all its peoples, as an organisation that is not partisan in the way it carries out its responsibilities.

Mr. Brazier: With regard to the impact on other theatres of operation, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us when it is next intended to hold a brigade or divisional exercise? The removal of infantry for various tasks—vital tasks such as those that have to be undertaken in Northern Ireland and others such as are being discharged in Bosnia—has created an overstretch that many of us feel has prevented the remaining formations from carrying out such exercises. When is the next brigade exercise planned?

Mr. Rifkind: That will be for the Army to decide.
However, the work being done by our forces in Bosnia and elsewhere is regarded as very valuable training and experience. Thus, it is seen as being in no way irrelevant to their true purpose or role.

Military Expenditure

Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make proposals for greater burden sharing of military expenditure among European members of NATO and the Western European Union.

Mr. Rifkind: The recent NATO summit agreed that European allies should take a greater responsibility for common security and defence. This will be achieved through the development of a European security and defence identity, expressed through the WEU, which will in turn strengthen the European pillar of the alliance.

Mr. Mandelson: In view of the further development of pooled European defence arrangements which, as the Secretary of State has said, were agreed at the NATO


summit and were foreshadowed by the Maastricht treaty,does he agree that common European defence policies require common thresholds of military spending by member states? Will the Government therefore give much greater impetus to devising new approaches to European defence spending in the run up to the intergovernmental conference in 1996?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should not get too obsessed with percentages when he compares the defence expenditures of various European countries. It is perhaps significant that the United Kingdom, France and Germany spend much the same sums of money on defence because in each case they have substantial commitments to the NATO alliance and to their other responsibilities. The three countries—which are, of course, the three senior European members of NATO—have comparable levels of defence expenditure, and that is no coincidence.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House when, as a result of those splendid arrangements, we can expect to see the Wehmacht committed to operations such as those in Bosnia and elsewhere which have a direct reflection on NATO and on western security?

Mr. Rifkind: I think that my hon. Friend is perhaps referring to the Bundeswehr, and not to the Wehmacht. I do not think that even my hon. Friend would be anxious to see the Wehmacht carrying out the responsibilities which he suggested. The Federal Government of Germany have indicated their desire to see the Bundeswehr carry out such responsibilities as soon as the German constitution permits such a task.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Secretary of State agree that if some of our European allies continue to reduce their defence expenditure at the current rate there will be a real possibility that the concept of the WEU as a European pillar of NATO will fast become a joke? [Interruption.]

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that, at a time of general instability in Europe when NATO is being called upon to carry out new tasks, it is important that all member states of the alliance—including the smaller states—should continue to make a credible contribution to the defence needs of the alliance. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if the House would settle down. It is very noisy this afternoon, and even the Secretary of State has difficulty in hearing the supplementary questions—let alone me.

Infantry Strength

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is current front-line infantry strength; and what it was in 1990.

Mr. Hanley: On 1 February this year, the total trained strength of the infantry was about 29,400. On 1 April 1990, it was about 35,900. These figures exclude 3,460 Gurkhas, 6,800 Royal Marines and soldiers from other arms deployed in the infantry role which are regularly about 1,280.

Mr. Pawsey: Given that fall in numbers, is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient numbers of infantry

able to discharge the United Kingdom's obligations in Hong Kong, Northern Ireland and Belize, and for the defence of United Kingdom itself?

Mr. Hanley: The answer is yes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced last November that certain amalgamations would be withdrawn and that there would be 3,000 extra back-up troops because we keep under regular review the need to meet our commitments. At current levels, we believe that the forces which we have meet those commitments, and meet them well.

Defence Export Services Organisation

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the jobs created as a result of the activities of the Defence Export Services Organisation since 1979.

Mr. Aitken: We estimate that at least 145,000 jobs in the defence sector are related to exports.

Dr. Jones: Is not it a disgrace that the Defence Export Services Organisation spent £16· million last year in promoting world instability? Would not more jobs be secured if that money, and other subsidies for arms manufacturers and support for the arms industry, were spent in helping them to diversify into civil manufacture?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Lady seeks to condemn the Defence Export Services Organisation for spending £16 million and says that that creates instability. I assure her that she is completely and utterly wrong. As I said in an answer to an earlier question, last year our defence exporters aided by DESO managed to clock up the remarkable total of £6 billion of defence exports—a record-breaking figure. That creates jobs, prosperity and economic strength for this country and an overwhelming number of hon. Members on both sides of the House warmly welcome that success.

Vacant Dwellings

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of vacant dwellings owned by his Department.

Mr. Hanley: As at 31 December 1993, my Department owned 10,108 vacant married quarters and 151 vacant Ministry of Defence houses. In addition 1,468 vacant married quarters and 44 vacant MOD civilian houses were in the process of being sold. The majority of the vacant married quarters were either undergoing or awaiting major works or modernisation, held for unit deployments, or already allocated to service families who were due to move in shortly.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Minister recall the statement by his fellow Minister, Viscount Cranborne, that many sales to housing associations were either delayed or terminated because of lack of funding? Does he accept that the Government's restrictions on capital expenditure are resulting in thousands of Ministry of Defence homes remaining empty while thousands of people are homeless?

Mr. Hanley: The Ministry of Defence sold 2,000 married quarters last year and we intend to sell another 5,000 during the next five years, which is a pretty impressive record.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Prime Minister recall that not a single vote was cast in the House on Second Reading against the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and that 231 hon. and right hon. Members voted for it? Will he assure the House that nothing will be done by the Government side to obstruct the passage of that Bill and that an early opportunity will be found for the Report stage and Third Reading?

The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to the House before, we share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. We have done a great deal for disabled people in recent years and will do yet more, both in this Parliament and the next. What we need to do in Committee and thereafter is to look at the practical implications of the Bill, and that will be done.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Following his recent success in encouraging and welcoming the introduction of Russian ground troops into the former Yugoslavia, as part of the United Nations Protection Force, will my right hon. Friend try to use his influence to improve communications between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and President Yeltsin, so that the Russian President will not feel excluded from the implementation of resolution 836, for which Russia voted in the Security Council on 4 June 1993?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend clearly indicates, Russia has a very important part to play in the peace process and I very much welcome the actions by the Russian deputy Foreign Minister during the past 24 hours to support the ceasefire negotiations.
As far as the recent close air support is concerned, UNPROFOR and NATO acted in accordance with the Security Council resolution that my hon. Friend mentioned. Both resolutions 836 and 844 were at the time accepted by Russia. In that instance, the close air support operation did not require further consultation with any Government and in those circumstances it was correctly authorised by the Secretary-General's special representative, but clearly, where it is militarily practicable, it is wise to seek the support of those countries that supported the resolution.

Mrs. Beckett: Is the appearance of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at yesterday's manifesto launch of Westminster city council—a council that the district auditor said wasted £21 million of taxpayers' money—an admission that the Government are happy to condone waste and incompetence?

The Prime Minister: Yesterday, I had the pleasure of spending some time in Birmingham, which I much enjoyed. If the right hon. Lady wishes to talk about waste and incompetence she might look at some of the activities of Birmingham city council in recent years.

Mrs. Beckett: What is the country to make—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Beckett: What is the country to make of the fact that the Minister in charge of the nation's purse-strings openly endorses a council that sold three cemeteries for 5p each, which had to be bought back at a cost of millions of pounds, and that the district auditor says has wasted £21 million of public money? What kind of standards are these?

The Prime Minister: I should be more impressed with what the right hon. Lady has to say if she applied precisely the same criteria to many Labour authorities, not just Birmingham—[Interruption.]—that I have mentioned. Some of my hon. Friends have just mentioned others and there are many to draw from.

Mrs. Beckett: Does not the Prime Minister understand that he and his Government deceived the public about the poll tax, deceived the public about income tax and deceived the public about value added tax, and are now trying to deceive the public about council tax and about their record on local authorities, that no one believes the Government any longer and that that is why the local elections and the Euro elections will be a referendum on the record of the Prime Minister and his whole Government?

The Prime Minister: I am bound to say that that was just a touch laboured. If she wants to talk about deceit on taxation, the right hon. Lady might look at her hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who, on the council tax, was forced to admit after weeks of prevarication that Conservative councils were noticeably less expensive to the council tax payer than Labour authorities. Whatever band of council tax one takes, the answer is the same: Labour councils tax more than Conservative councils.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend as alarmed as I am at the unusual comments made by Vladimir Zhirinovsky in France this morning when he spoke about the possibility of a nuclear attack on France? Does he agree with me that now is not the time to talk about nuclear disarmament as some Opposition Members have done?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. There should be no doubt that we will maintain our nuclear deterrent in its strength, quite unlike Opposition Members who for many years have been prepared to abandon it unilaterally.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister reaffirm that apart from the action taken by the United Nations being consistent with UN Security Council resolutions, as he has suggested, it was also necessary to support the authority of the UN and it was required for the protection of UN peacekeepers? Does he also agree with me that now is the time to keep our nerve, maintain our military determination and increase diplomatic pressure on the Serbs in order to


persuade them that they have more to gain from returning to the peace process than from aggression or from further challenges to United Nations authority?

The Prime Minister: On this occasion, I am able broadly to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Close air support will remain available to the UN commanders, and they will be able to call on it again if they consider it necessary under either resolution 836 or resolution 844. I hope that those who may be prepared to attack UNPROFOR will draw the appropriate lesson from what has happened so that further use of close air support is unnecessary. As regards keeping our nerve, we are determined to do whatever we can to try to bring about a full settlement. A huge amount has been achieved in the past eight weeks or so. We need to build on it in the weeks ahead, and there will be no loss of nerve here or, I hope, anywhere else.

Mr. Bates: Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest edition of plant Location International which has carried out a poll of the world's best regions for foreign direct investment in which Shenzhen, China is third, Cape province, South Africa is second and the northern region is first? Does not this excellent news demonstrate how the economic fortunes of the north-east have been transformed since 1979 under the present Government?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that that particular publication was not part of my Easter reading, but I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has to say and I certainly share his view about the renewal of prospects, not just in the north-east, but in the whole of the northern part of England.

Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Donohoe: Making reference to the statement made earlier by the Prime Minister in connection with Birmingham, will the right hon. Gentleman condemn the lies and deceptions contained in last week's Tory party broadcast?

The Prime Minister: I never condemn reality and truth. The reality is that we could have given a whole series of illustrations, not just of Birmingham city council, but of a series of other councils—Coventry, Waltham Forest, Derbyshire. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) knows all about Derbyshire and the chairman of the finance committee.

Mrs. Beckett: indicated assent.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady may contemplate that before she asks me again about Westminster or any other Conservative authority. So I think that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) ought to consider the depth of corruption and despair that there is as a result of Labour local authorities.

Deregulation

Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with other European political leaders about deregulation in respect of European directives.

The Prime Minister: The Commission has said that it will bring forward proposals that will involve the simplification or repeal of about 25 per cent. of Community legislation.

Mr. Steen: In view of the Prime Minister's success in persuading the Commission of the need for greater deregulation, will he try and persuade the other European leaders of the need to embark upon a compliance cost assessment before any directive is implemented, so that every country in Europe knows the cost to its taxpayers before a directive is enforced and implemented?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of compliance cost assessment, and we are actively encouraging other member states in the Community to introduce systems similar to our own. We are seeking to strengthen the Commission's systems, so ensuring that all proposals for Community legislation are justified in terms of their costs and of their benefits, because the only rational way for Europe to behave in terms of its future legislation is to ensure that Europe becomes more competitive and avoids unnecessary on-costs and over-regulation.

Engagements

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Hara: Talking of Westminster, Library statistics tell us that Tory Westminster spends £78 more per capita than Liverpool and yet it manages to do that on a band D council tax which is less than one third of Liverpool's. What possible justification can the Prime Minister give for such flagrant politically motivated gerrymandering of central Government support to Westminster?

The Prime Minister: One of the great differences between Westminster and many of the local authorities that the hon. Gentleman is so fond of is that Westminster collects its rents, for example. If one were to consider—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman—

Madam Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman were to examine the list of local authorities that have a bad rent collection record, he would find Labour local authorities heading that list and running right down it. He would find the same if he considered local authorities in debt, and the same with local authorities who have empty dwellings. The reality is, on any realistic measure of local authority performance, the worst local authorities are socialist local authorities.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the city of Chester.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the city of Chester is one of the great cultural capitals of Europe, the home of two fine theatres and the place where


the first movie was shown in this country, in 1890? Will my right hon. Friend join me in saluting the extraordinary contribution of film and theatre to this country's economy and standing; a contribution best exemplified by the unique career of Sir John Gielgud, who is visiting Westminster today and who celebrates his 90th birthday this week?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the film and variety industry, to the city of Chester and to Sir John Gielgud. I did not myself hear it, but I gather that those who did hear his remarkable King Lear over the weekend regarded it as one of the finest Lears that they had ever heard. He will be very welcome in Westminster, and I should like to add my congratulations to Sir John on his 90th birthday.

London (Policies)

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the policies of Her Majesty's Government which have been assessed as the most popular in London.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will see the best of London local government if he looks at the outstanding services offered by Conservative boroughs throughout London.

Mr. Hughes: If the Prime Minister is unwilling to change his most popular policies, which have reduced his support from more than 45 per cent. to 26 per cent. in the capital, would he like to consider changing his least popular policies and not close hospitals such as Guy's which have now been shown to be part of a health service in which there is no surplus of beds, no surplus of resources and a huge amount of still unmet London-wide need?

The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman either fails to understand or fails to mention is the fact that the changes in the hospital structure in London are mirrored by changes to primary health care that will deliver very dramatic improvements in primary health care for all Londoners. There is no doubt that that is necessary and that, as a result of these changes, Londoners will both deserve and receive the standards of health care that I believe they should have and that are enjoyed elsewhere.

Gorazde

Dr. John Cunningham: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Gorazde.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Close air support was requested by General Rose on the afternoon of 10 April in response to the threat to United Nations personnel trapped in part of Gorazde by Serb attackers closing in on the town. There are at present 12 UN military observers in Gorazde—eight of them British—and four United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees personnel.
The request, which was backed by General de la Presle, the commander of UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia, was speedily authorised by the UN special representative, Mr. Akashi. Two US F16s under North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command carried out air attacks against a Serb artillery position. Serb shelling continued for a short period thereafter, but, according to UN reports, the city was mostly quiet during the night.
Yesterday morning, the shelling resumed, despite warnings from UNPROFOR commanders and demonstration flights by NATO planes. General Rose requested further close air support after Serb shelling of the city close to UN positions. At 12·21, two F18 aircraft under NATO command bombed three Serb armoured vehicles. We understand that the shelling has since diminished.
The decision to call for close air support was taken in accordance with agreed UN and NATO procedures and has our full support. The UN Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Ghali, has also approved the action taken. The safety of UNPROFOR personnel, including the 3,300 British troops on the ground in Bosnia, is always paramount. On this occasion, the risk to UNPROFOR personnel was thought by UNPROFOR commanders grave enough to warrant a request to NATO for air support. Such air support is clearly authorised by UN Security Council resolutions 836 and 844.
Despite some threats, there has so far been no significant military retaliation and only minor harassment of UNPROFOR and UNHCR personnel. All humanitarian convoys crossing Bosnian Serb areas and aid flights into Sarajevo were suspended. They have not yet resumed, although we hope that they will be able to do so soon. The Overseas Development Administration remains in close co-ordination with UNPROFOR and UNHCR on contingency planning.
Although the situation in Gorazde is, I am told, now relatively calm, more than 100 people are reported to have been killed there in the past few days. The parties should sit down and agree to an overall ceasefire. That is what UNPROFOR has been trying to negotiate, as a first step towards a general political settlement involving, as it would have to, substantial Serb withdrawal from territory now occupied.
I am in touch with Mr. Kozyrev about the important Russian role in this effort. The parties should draw the right lessons from the use of air power. Sir Michael Rose has made it clear that UNPROFOR is not taking sides in the conflict. That is not its task. It does not intend to be drawn

into open-ended intervention for or against any of the parties. But the international community has made it clear that it will not tolerate attacks on UNPROFOR, and attacks on the safe areas must cease. I am sure that the House will welcome the prompt and necessary action taken by NATO in support of UNPROFOR personnel, with the full support of both those organisations.

Dr. Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we accept that the action taken was fully authorised by existing resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and, as such, has our complete support? Does he also accept that we believe that it was not necessary to seek anyone's prior agreement before that action was taken and authorised by commanders on the ground, with the support of the United Nations representative in Bosnia?
What political strategy is the United Nations now to follow in view of this latest setback involving the Serbian advance on Gorazde and the reimposition of the blockade on Sarajevo? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not the intention to use air power in defence of designated safe areas unless such use is authorised by a further resolution of the United Nations Security Council? What change in circumstances led to action yesterday rather than two weeks ago when the first Serbian advances on Gorazde began? Why did the United Nations and NATO wait for two weeks before taking action in support of UNPROFOR forces on the ground?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the importance—I believe that he does—of keeping Russia fully engaged in the situation, especially as its support was so vital in securing a ceasefire at Sarajevo and Mr. Churkin has expressed the intention to get the Serbs back to the negotiating table as quickly as possible? Should not Russia have been informed earlier of the action taken by NATO warplanes?
Is it not clear that the Bosnian Prime Minister, Dr. Silajdzic, has a point when he says that the Serbs have again gained territory without the United Nations acting quickly enough to prevent the Serb advance? Is he not also right when he says that it was entirely predictable that the decision to allow the Serbs to take away their heavy artillery from Sarajevo would inevitably mean that those guns would be used for the bombardment of Gorazde and other safe areas?
Exactly when does the right hon. Gentleman think that further action will be taken and what will be the nature of such action if, as he says is the intention, the Serbs do not withdraw to their positions as of 30 March this year?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support of the NATO action. He asked about the back-up diplomatic strategy of the UN. With the full encouragement and active work of the Americans, there has recently been a Croat-Muslim agreement and the task now is to hook the Serbs into it. As I said in my original answer, it involves substantial Serb withdrawal from land that they now occupy. They agreed that in principle on HMS Invincible.
The powers for the air action were exercised under United Nations Security Council resolutions 836 and 844. The right hon. Gentleman knows the content of those resolutions and how wide they are. Those powers have not been exceeded on this occasion. Obviously, if it were proposed to take further action outside the terms of those resolutions, a new resolution would be needed.


The right hon. Gentleman asked about timing—those are matters for military judgment. Close air support is not called for until and unless the commanders involved and Mr. Akashi feel that all other ways of protecting UN personnel in the safe areas have been exhausted. Their judgment was that the right time—that moment—came over the weekend.
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right: of course, it would be better if everything—all ills, suffering and fighting in Bosnia—had been brought to an end in one go, but that has not happened. We have had progress step by step. It is right to say that there is much more to be done. The present tensions and fighting in Gorazde illustrate that, but they are not a condemnation of what has been achieved so far.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Russia—his concern links with, but slightly contradicts, one of his first questions. If one is to take air action of that sort, it must be done quickly—

Dr. John Cunningham: I said "informed".

Mr. Hurd: I am coming to "informed". Forty-four minutes elapsed between the request and the action. It is precisely because of the need for speed that both the UN and NATO agreed procedures that allowed for speed, but did not mean that member states could be consulted in advance. They were informed soon afterwards—in New York on Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend accept that what is at stake here is not just a beleaguered town in Bosnia, but the authority and credibility of the United Nations itself? Does he accept that it is vital that ethnic cleansing, territorial aggression, and the seizing of territory and the altering of boundaries by force are not rewarded and are not seen to be ultimately rewarded?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's point. Some of those objectives can be secured by the use of force as defined by the decisions of NATO and the UN Security Council; some of them require economic pressure; all of them require political pressure. It is that mix which must be constantly brought into action.

Sir David Steel: Self-evidently, no military action in Bosnia is without risk. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that by far the greatest risk would have been the flouting and humiliation of the UN's authority by allowing the bombardment of the safe area of Gorazde to continue unchecked, and that that risk has now been overcome? Can he confirm to the House the reports that, this morning, General Rose has warned the Bosnian army against continuing attacks on the Serbs? If that is so, does it not disprove the absurd charge that the UN has abandoned neutrality?

Mr. Hurd: General Rose and UNPROFOR have been concerned about actions in Sarajevo and Gorazde by all sides involved, and, in central Bosnia, by the Croats as well. It is perfectly true that the weight of attack and the weight of blame rests on the Bosnian Serbs. The right hon. Gentleman is right.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the procedures for calling for

close air support have been drastically improved in recent months, and it is essential that decisions are taken at the lowest possible level in Bosnia? Has consideration been given to rotating the nations supplying the aircraft for that specific role? Can my right hon. confirm that the principle of the minimum use of force will be adhered to as closely as possible?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. Decisions are taken by Mr. Akashi on behalf of the UN and by Admiral Boorda on behalf of NATO. That has been carefully worked out in principle and is now working effectively in practice, but, of course, it is a matter of last resort. It is for the NATO authorities to decide which planes on which occasions should be responsible for carrying out the action.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some of us have been advocating such action from the outset? If it has been proved as successful as he said it has been, would not a great many lives have been saved had the policy been employed 18 months ago?

Mr. Hurd: I made a mistake in naming Admiral Boorda—he was replaced by Admiral Smith.
Those are matters of judgment, in which military advice need not always be paramount but is bound to weigh heavily. That action was taken at the time and in the way recommended by General Rose and approved by his superior, General de la Presle, and the UN. I am not at all clear that earlier action would have received that kind of approval.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is inconceivable that the United Nations, having declared a safe area, could allow it to be overrun? Will he clarify the status by which those save havens can be protected, and say whether anything more is necessary from the UN, to enable air strikes for that purpose—as opposed to the purpose of looking after the lives of UNPROFOR personnel?

Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend reads Security Council resolution 836, he will find there the definition of the mandate. We are content with that, at present. I believe that all the allies, and the UNPROFOR commanders, are content with it. One cannot peer wholly into the future, but I believe that the present mandate is sufficient.
My hon. Friend's first point was entirely right. The UN needs not so much an extension of the mandate as more troops, and Britain took the initiative a short while ago to bring that about. It produced a certain result, which was very necessary. In addition to our own 900 extra men to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred a few minutes ago, we have commitments and some extra men.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: But not enough.

Mr. Hurd: But not enough. Turkey, the Czech Republic and other countries have made commitments. The sooner those troops can be effective on the ground, the better.

Ms Kate Hoey: In welcoming the action taken to help save lives in Gorazde, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he has communicated with President Clinton in the past couple of days, concerning the possibility of American troops helping to protect safe areas


—particularly Sarajevo, where there is peace at the moment? That would be in line with American policy of participating as part of a peace process.

Mr. Hurd: President Clinton has made his position clear often enough. The United States would be willing to consider providing ground troops in Bosnia under NATO command, up to a certain proportion, once there is a general settlement. He has not moved from that position. What is happening—particularly in Sarajevo—is that the Americans are active in the task of reconstruction. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was last in Washington, he agreed with President Clinton a joint Anglo-American civilian task force designed to help Sarajevo to get back to normal. The Americans are active in that way and in the air.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a sea change in attitudes in the former Yugoslavia? Whereas, previously, many were reluctant to see a further commitment given, it was right to build on the improvement there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, from a diplomatic point of view, there is every argument for consulting everyone before using close air support—but from a military point of view, it is crucial that there should be minimal delay between calling for close air support and using it? Is he satisfied that delay is minimal now?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I am. My hon. Friend put his second point extremely well—he is exactly right. As to his first point, there has been a substantial change, and we must not see it thrown away. That is why we took the decisions that we did—giving a lead in that respect and reinforcing success. The ceasefire in Sarajevo was followed by one in central Bosnia and the agreement between the Croats and Muslims that I mentioned. That is not nearly enough, but it is the start of good news. It would be a tragedy if, through any lack of effort by the UN or any failure of nerve, that good news were to turn to bad news.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the Russians had been informed of impending action, would there have been a danger of their trying to block it? If so, would they have been successful?

Mr. Hurd: No, because the action did not require a new Security Council resolution.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that NATO has available massive air assets, and that the minimum amount used in this instance demonstrates how carefully thought out was that particular operation? It is one thing to attack tanks and other heavy armour, but another to make assets available for attacks against mortars and more difficult equipment—and there would be huge political and military risks in any escalation.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend knows from past exchanges that all the thoughts that he has just uttered are very much in our minds and have been for a long time. The choice of the planes used and the choice of the targets selected show that what my hon. Friend said about care has been fully observed.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that UN Security Council resolutions already authorise the use of force to protect the

safe areas and not just the UN forces in those areas? Given that air action has now been used and, apparently, has been effective, will not it be difficult in future to sustain that distinction and say that we will not use air power to defend civilians but that we will use it to protect our forces?

Mr. Hurd: UNSC resolution 836
Authorizes UNPROFOR…in carrying out the mandate defined in paragraph 5 above, acting in self-defence, to take the necessary measures, including the use of force, in reply to bombardments against the safe areas by any of the parties or to armed incursion into them".
There are several elements there, but the hon. Gentleman obviously knows the text and knows that it offers considerable scope.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will Her Majesty's Government make it quite plain to the belligerents that, in the event of either technical malfunction or hostile fire leading to the ejection of Royal Air Force or Royal Navy air crew over Bosnia, entirely humane treatment is expected on the part of the belligerents towards those air crew, and that there should be no retaliation whatever to the action of UNPROFOR personnel acting as monitors who, for their own self-defence, have to act temporarily as forward air controllers to bring in close air support?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend, with his knowledge, will not expect me to speak about forward air control, but both his general points must be right.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did not the Foreign Secretary rather sharply confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that, whatever the Russians had done, in no circumstances would it have altered the situation and the decision to attack? Is it really wise to undertake any attack without Russian endorsement, given that they are absolutely crucial to any lasting solution and in persuading the Serbs not to go on the offensive?

Mr. Hurd: I mentioned in my original answer the importance—I would say the crucial importance—of the Russian role. The hon. Gentleman has just underlined that. The Russians, in influencing the Serbs, and I hope also the Bosnian Serbs, are indispensable. But the Russians are also realists. They know perfectly well the procedures; they have been endlessly discussed, and with the Russians. They know the procedures for close air support. They know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) pointed out vividly, that if one is to have such procedures, they preclude consultation in advance of member states. Member states are fully entitled to be promptly informed, and can then discuss the consequences. That is happening now.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Is my right hon. Friend perfectly satisfied that it is both prudent and appropriate to use NATO forces in an offensive role, bearing in mind that, when NATO was founded in 1949, it was founded as a purely defensive organisation?

Mr. Hurd: When one has UN troops—including in this case British personnel—at risk in a particular situation, who are approved by the Security Council with the full support of all NATO countries, action to protect those people is not offensive but essentially defensive.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Has the Secretary of State heard the reports this lunch hour, presumably from UNPROFOR sources, that Muslim forces in Gorazde have been launching mortar shell attacks against Serb positions? Will he confirm that the military hostilities that began two weeks ago in and around Gorazde were the result of a Muslim infantry offensive? Should such further offensives take place from safe havens such as Srebrenica or Maglaj, what action will he recommend under UNSC resolution 836?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is extraordinarily difficult to get at the truth about the origins of each of those incidents. That is certainly true.

Mr. Wareing: It is important, though.

Mr. Hurd: It is very important, and that is why the British have placed such emphasis on getting the right equipment in place to make the best job of it that we can. But it is not an exact science. There is always a temptation for one side to start something relatively minor in the hope that the other side will respond in a way that the world then notices and condemns. That has been one of the problems all the way through.
Having said that, I think that the House will, on the whole, accept that the main responsibility for recent bloodshed—indeed, for the origins of the war—rests with the Bosnian Serbs, and that General Rose was therefore justified in specifying the action that he recommended and which was taken.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that one of the top priorities of British foreign policy is the continuing improvement of relations between Russia and the United Kingdom? As we have become increasingly sucked into the civil war in Bosnia in the past 12 months, with increased land forces and now air attacks, will he assure the House that further increases in our involvement in Bosnia will take into account the relationship with Russia?

Mr. Hurd: We do take into account the relationship with Russia, but it is a relationship of countries that are friendly but which have different foreign policies in several respects. The Russians do not expect us to dance to their tune in Bosnia. They have an important role, and when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I were in Moscow not long ago, we spent most of the time discussing that role. I understand what the Russians are trying to do. In the Baltic states it has not been positive; but in Bosnia it has been positive, and we want to keep it that way, which means keeping in close touch with them.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am delighted, at long last, after the appalling dilatoriness and pusillanimity of the right hon. Gentleman and his European Foreign Secretary colleagues, to be able to congratulate him whole-heartedly on his statement and the stand that it at long last embodies?

Mr. Hurd: It has been easy for the hon. Gentleman to stand and shout at me from the Back Benches for many months, but his type of interventions, although they are sincerely felt and strongly expressed, have not always been well judged, either in timing or in substance. The sending even of a couple of F16s and the use of force in this way, as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who speaks for the Liberal party,

recognises, are bound to be very risky decisions which can carry very serious consequences. They are not to be enterprised or taken in hand simply as a relief for emotion.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify precisely the chain of command? He told us who asked for the air strikes and he told us who approved the air strikes, but who authorised them? Was President Clinton informed before American aircraft were used in those air strikes?
The reason that I ask the question, which the Foreign Secretary will fully understand, is that when he announced Government's change of policy he said that the unity of NATO was the prime consideration. What many people are wondering about, apart from the risk that the action might lead to escalation into a deeper conflict, is whether the unity of NATO is being put above the unity of the United Nations where the Soviet Union—Russia, as it is today— is a permanent member of the Security Council and, therefore, has a special statutory position, quite apart from its historic geographical interest in the area.

Mr. Hurd: Close air support of this kind is decided by NATO Commander-in-Chief South, Admiral Smith, once he is clear that the representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Akashi, has approved. That is what took place this time. The President of the United States—the United States Administration—was informed at the same time as we were. They were the procedures that had been worked out and approved, and the Russians knew of them. They take place under United Nations Security Council resolution 836 which the Russians approved.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in his original question related to the delay in informing the Russians that the attack had taken place. The Foreign Secretary knows, because he said it himself, that the Russians are crucial if we are to get the Serbs around the negotiating table. That is what concerns my colleagues. We are not asking for the Russians to be consulted; we understand that the attack took place under Security Council resolutions, but we are concerned about the delay in informing the Russians, and that is the concern which the Russians themselves have expressed.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) talked about consultation and I think that we have dealt with that point.
As regards information, I have no reason to suppose that there was undue delay by the UN in informing Ambassador Vorontsov in New York of what had occurred.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is it not tragically true and salutary to point out, even at this stage, that the suffering in Bosnia over the past few days bears no comparison to the suffering in Rwanda? Also, does not the suffering in the former Yugoslavia in the past 12 months bear little comparison to the suffering in Angola? Therefore, what reassurance can the Foreign Secretary give the House and the country that the international community's consideration of those matters bears some relation, at least in time, energy and money spent, to the suffering in the countries concerned?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member makes an extremely good point, which I have made over the years in answering


questions about Bosnia. The international community is simply not equipped—it should not pretend that it is equipped—to bring peace with justice to all those tragedies across the world. We in this country are certainly not equipped to act as a policeman or a judge or a universal soldier in that way. We must reckon with that and we have to do what we can, where we can.
The civil war in Bosnia and the suffering in the former Yugoslavia are in our continent. They are quite close to us. It is right that we should he devoting such effort to them. I do not accept the argument that because we cannot do everything, we should do nothing. We should not pretend that those other tragedies are not taking place, because they are.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: A moment or two ago, the Foreign Secretary referred to the participation of Turkish soldiers in the United Nations peacekeeping role. He knows well that numerous concerns have been expressed about that. Will he tell the House what role they will play? Is it entirely a supportive role and will they be under the tight control of General Rose and his fellow officers?

Mr. Hurd: Certainly, all UN troops are under tight UN command, including our own and the Russians, who are there in Sarajevo. The hon. Member should be assured of that. Where the Turks should be deployed is a matter for the UN. Obviously, there has been some concern about that, as there has been concern from the opposite point of view about the Russians. I believe that it was right of the Secretary-General, against the background of his need, to take up the long-standing offer of the Turks.

Newly Qualified Drivers

Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require newly qualified drivers to display on the vehicles they are driving an indication that they are newly qualified; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to improve road safety by measures specifically relating to newly qualified drivers. It is a two-part Bill which attempts to combat public fears and problems of road safety. Part I requires the display of a plate for one year, following the passing of the official test, and part II reduces the maximum penalty points for the same period from 12 to nine.
Let me say from the outset that my wife maintains that she is a better driver than I. She passed her test on the first occasion and I passed mine on the second. More than two decades later, we are still driving, although, when we are together, I invariably drive. When I asked my wife why that should be the case, she said that it is to enable her to give me continual instructions on how I should be driving. It would be less than gallant of me to describe such behaviour in a lady as that of a classic back-seat driver.
Whatever can be said of my driving or that of my wife, both of us remember graphically what it was like to be a newly qualified driver and how nerve-racking it could be in the early days when one drove alone, especially if one had no motorway experience. A recent study shows that almost three quarters of newly qualified drivers on the road are under 25 years of age. My Bill would mean that the probationary period would apply to all newly qualified drivers, regardless of age.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to reduce the number of road accidents. That may seem a difficult objective to achieve, because accidents are often down to the unpredictable behaviour of human beings. Nevertheless, over recent years the Department of Transport has embarked upon a host of measures, after taking careful advice, and I believe that they have made a substantial contribution to the reduction of road accidents in general.
I pay a warm tribute to all those who have been involved with effective road safety measures, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and, especially, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who has twice tried to introduce a similar measure. I hope that with my Bill it will be a case of third time lucky.
It is difficult to find adequate words to describe the horror that confronts our policemen every day of the week when they call to tell relatives that their loved ones have been injured, maimed or, worse still, killed. Such events and the traumas associated with them leave a scar on everyone involved. On what I believe to be an all-party issue, it must make sense for Parliament to do all in its power to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies.
Seventy-six per cent. of the accidental deaths of 16 to 19-year-olds result from road accidents. Even more shocking is the fact that drivers aged 17 to 21 are responsible for more than 1,000 deaths a year as a result of vehicle accidents. That age group represents only 10 per cent. of licence holders, yet its members are involved in 20 per cent. of all accidents. An 18-year-old is three times more likely to be involved in a car accident than a


48-year-old; every mile driven by a 17-year-old is seven times more likely to result in an accident than a mile driven by a middle-aged man.
What are the reasons for those shocking statistics? I do not believe that passing an official driving test is very hard for many people, although I fully accept that some people who would make excellent drivers suffer from nerves when faced with the test. However, most people taking the test are younger and more dextrous. The test can be taken and passed so quickly today.
Does passing really mean that a person is fit and equipped with the necessary skills to drive safely on all our roads? I fear not. For example, it has always seemed extraordinary to me that some people pass their tests yet appear to have no knowledge whatever of the basic workings of a motor vehicle. That is not helpful when we are trying to ensure that motorists drive safely.
I freely admit that no driving test in any country can be more than a poor reflection of the real driving world. The Metropolitan police believe that one of the biggest problems is the misconception of what a driver's licence means. All that it really means is that newly qualified drivers can now learn to drive on their own. The misconception causes newly qualified people to think that they are good drivers, who can drive like experienced drivers, so they are injured and killed at a disproportionate rate.
All the factors that I have outlined support the need for a probation plate for one year. We can argue about the letter that should be displayed on the plate, but the Bill's aim is to reduce the total of deaths and injuries by using a distinctive mark on vehicles and introducing tighter penalties.
Newly qualified drivers' reactions are much slower in potential accident situations. The new plate seeks to minimise the resulting dangers by alerting other drivers. Following consultation, the Secretary of State would decide what letter would be designated for the plate for the one-year mandatory display.
Even with all that, it would be necessary to introduce the second part of the Bill, which is an attempt to lower the penalty point allowance for newly qualified drivers from 12 to nine points. That would provide an incentive for new drivers to take much more care and cultivate good road manners. Last week, the Automobile Association said that a lower points allowance was a good idea. Only one in six drivers are newly qualified, but they are involved in one in four reported accidents. The AA believes that something certainly needs to be done about the problem, and that the Bill is a step in the right direction.
The AA is not alone in its support; the Metropolitan Police also endorses its views. They are totally supportive of a reduction from 12 to nine penalty points on the ground that that would lead to more responsible driving. They quote the old saying that the safest driver is the commercial vehicle driver with nine points on his licence. If we transferred that axiom to the newly qualified driver with a lower point maximum, it would still hold true.
The Magistrates Association also supports the principle of one year's probation for new drivers and a reduction in the maximum penalty points during that period. The

association told me that measures involving new drivers, as proposed in my Bill, would reduce over-confidence and bring about improvements in road safety.
Finally, other countries have evidence to prove the value in terms of road safety of the measures that I am proposing. I cannot believe that, with British organisational skills, we would find it difficult to administer a life-saving scheme. It is not my intention to spoil the joy of a family when one of its members passes the driving test; rather, it is to prevent the chilling knock on the door when a policeman arrives with tragic news. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I oppose the proposed Bill, in the same way that I opposed the similar one introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
The whole House will share the respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for the police when they must knock on a stranger's door and bring bad news about a traffic crash. We should stop talking about traffic accidents and talk about crashes because we know a great deal about the causes.
I do not want to focus on my hon. Friend's proposed reduction in the number of penalty points that would be allowed. I want to stick to the advertising of new qualification by what is normally referred to as a P for probationary or R for restricted plate. My hon. Friend rightly did not share with the House whether he thought that the plate that should be displayed would have restrictions associated with it.
Some people argue that one should not be able to drive on motorways; some argue that one should not be able to drive at more than 50 mph; and some argue that one should not be able to have more than one passenger. There is a whole series of options. I object to the principle on which my hon. Friend based his argument. As far as I am aware, there is no substantial body of evidence that having a probationary or restricted plate on the back or front of a car makes any difference.
For some time, part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—has had a similar plate with various restrictions. When I served as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Office, having worked as a junior Minister in the Department of Transport, I asked for a study that would show what appeared to be the impact of introducing that requirement—I think that it has been there for about 20 years. The answer is that no one knows.
For some time, the Department of Transport has been examining whether a substantiated claim can be made for having a special plate. We have not yet seen that evidence and I doubt whether it will be conclusive when it comes.
I shall share with the House two articles from "Road Accidents Great Britain 1992: The Casualty Report". That report contains the good news that since 1986—the European Year of Road Safety—the number of road deaths has fallen by more than 1,000. Of course, in the past year, the number has fallen by another 400. That means that many of the actions that have been taken in terms of road-user behaviour, the vehicle and the road environment have clearly been immensely successful.
The article by Kathryn Markey shows that drivers aged between 17 and 20 of either sex are involved in relatively


more accidents—I use the word "crashes"—on minor roads, in the dark, away from junctions, on bends and when no other vehicle is involved.
In any of those circumstances—in the dark when one would not be able to see the plate; on minor roads when one would not see much traffic; and away from junctions and bends, or when no other vehicle is involved—I do not se any scientific basis on which one could set up a disprovable hypothesis that would tell us what the effect of the plate would be.
On the question of high-risk offenders, the subsequent article, by Dr. Jeremy Broughton, considers people who have to requalify because they have been caught once driving at two and a half times the legal alcohol limit or twice, during a 10-year period, driving above the legal limit. The peak age for these people is 27. Unless, for some reason, it is a habit desperately concentrated among those who passed the driving test at the age of 26, the logic behind my hon. Friend's proposition could be that anyone aged 26 should display a plate—26 or 27 being the peak age in severe cases involving drinking and driving.
One could argue about displaying plates at different times of the day. Females tend to have accidents in the morning or evening rush hour, whereas the time in the case of males tends to be around 10 o'clock at night. People driving vehicles that are owned by companies tend to have twice or three times as many crashes as individuals, of almost any age, driving their own vehicles.
The proposition ought to be that we should go on doing what has been shown to work. I refer to some of the ideas of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, to one of whose presidents—the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is in the House—as to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), I pay tribute. The things that have been shown to work are those that influence people's behaviour. The behavioural research led by the university of Reading, and funded originally by General Accident in one of its really great commercial investments in the protection of young people's lives, indicates that young drivers do not understand what a hazard is. Putting a plate on either end of a car would not change that.
However, it might change if the media could be persuaded to use interesting means—perhaps a five-minute spot each week—of showing what people get wrong.

Colour magazines, which contain articles with such titles as "A Day in the Life of … " or "A Meal in the Life of…", might carry something entitled "A Crash in the Life of… ". That might explain what had led to a body-breaking, or at least a metal-bending, crash.
The Transport Research Laboratory has contributed immensely to cutting the number of casualties from 5,400 to 3,800. Here, I question whether it is sensible to go through with the idea of privatising the laboratory. I believe that, if it is privatised, fewer Transport Ministers will rely on the scientific evidence.
The combined work of vehicle engineers and road engineers, as well as of the police in filling in the "Statistics 19" form which provides the basic information in the "Casualty Report" to which I have referred, can lead to a continued reduction in the numbers of people killed and seriously injured.
We can achieve something similar to what was achieved in the case of drunken driving. Young people used to be twice as bad as their fathers but became half as bad. Indeed, we might be able to get below 3,000 deaths a year. That would be almost a third of the peak level, even though the volume of traffic has increased dramatically.
I realise that the intentions behind my hon. Friend's proposed Bill are good. However, I advise the House, and I certainly advise the Department of Transport, to pay no attention to the measure. It is not the way forward. There are many other effective means of cutting the number of casualties.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Alton, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. lain Duncan Smith, Mr. Robert Dunn, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mrs. Angela Knight, Dame Jill Knight and Lady Olga Maitland.

NEWLY QUALIFIED DRIVERS

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to require newly qualified drivers to display on the vehicles they are driving an indication that they are newly qualified; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 March] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in Committee and in the Standing Committee), That the clause (Racial harassment) be read a Second time—
'1.(1) In relation to any prosecution for any offence of violence it shall be the duty of the prosecuting authority to place before the court any evidence tending to show that such offence has been committed on the ground of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin ("racial grounds").
(2) On conviction of any offence of violence the court shall have regard to such evidence in determining the penalty, and, if satisfied that the offence was committed on racial grounds ("racial violence"), shall impose an additional penalty which may exceed the maximum penalty otherwise prescribed for such offence.

2.(1) A person is guilty of the offence of racial harassment if on racial grounds he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby; or
(b) commits any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

(2) A constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he reasonably suspects of conduct constituting an offence under this section.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable:

(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both:.—[Mr. Michael.]

Question again proposed.

Madam Speaker: I remind the House that with this we are also debating the following: Government new clause 125—Offence of racially inflammatory publication etc. to be arrestable.
New clause 50—Aggravation of racial hatred—
'(1) If any person commits any offence provided for by—

(i) sections 18, 20 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or
(ii) sections 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and does so with a motive of racial hatred, then he shall be guilty of the said offence with aggravation of racial hatred.

(2) In this section, "racial hatred" means racial hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.'.
New clause 88—Racial hatred—
'.-Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended as follows—
In section 27(1) there shall be substituted for the words "of the Attorney General" the words "of the Director of Public Prosecutions".'.
New clause 89—Offences committed on racial grounds—
'.—(1) In relation to any prosecution for any offence of violence it shall be the duty of the prosecuting authority to place before the court any evidence tending to show that such offence has been committed on racial grounds.
(2) On conviction of any offence of violence the court shall have regard to such evidence in determining the penalty and if satisfied that the offence was committed on racial grounds shall impose a penalty, which shall not be more than twice the maximum prescribed penalty. The court shall be required to give reasons for the penalty imposed, indicating in what way it has taken account of its finding that the offence was committed on racial grounds.'.
New clause 90—Racial harassment (No. 2)—

'.—(1) A person is guilty of the offence of racial harassment if on racial grounds he—

(a) commits any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress; or
(b) uses words or behaviour or displays any writing, sign or other visual representation which is offensive on racial grounds within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2) a constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he reasonably suspects of conduct constituting an offence under this section.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.'.

New clause 97—Incitement to racial hatred (arrestable offence)—
.—(1) After subsection 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects in committing an offence under this section.".
(2) In Schedule 5 Part II of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Serious Arrestable Offences) there shall be added at the end—
"Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)
9. Section 19 (publishing or distributing written material likely to stir up racial hatred).".'.
New clause 98—Racial hatred (conditions on public processions)—
—(1) In subsection 12(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986 there shall be added after the word "community," the words "on racial, religious, ethnic or other grounds,".
(2) In subsection 12(1)(b) of the Public Order Act 1986 there shall be added at the end after the word "do," the words "or to stir up racial hatred,".'.
New clause 100—Harassment—
'.—(1) The Public Order Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
(2) For section 5(1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) commits any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress; or
(b) uses words or behaviour or displays any writing, sign or other visual representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.".

(3) For section 5(4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant whom he reasonably suspects of conduct constituting an offence under this section.".
(4) Section 5(5) is hereby repealed.
(5) For section 5(6) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum or both.".

(6) For section 6(4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(4) A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 if a reasonable person would have expected any such trespass or nuisance to cause harassment, alarm or distress, or any such words or behaviour, or any such writing, sign or other visual representation to be threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.".'.


New clause 127—Racially-motivated violence (No. 2)—
—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence of—

(a) racially motivated manslaughter,
(b) racially motivated grievous bodily harm,
(c) racially motivated wounding with intent,
(d) racially motivated assault occasioning actual bodily harm or
(e) racially motivated common assault.

if, with racial motivation he commits manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, wounding with intent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or common assault respectively.
(2) In this section "racial motivation" shall mean motivation on the grounds of colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years in addition to, and consecutive to, the sentence applicable for conviction of the offences of common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or assault occasioning grievous bodily harm respectively.'.

Mr. David Sumberg: I suppose that I have a unique qualification to speak to the clauses—not simply because I am Jewish, but because I represent in my constituency many members of the Jewish community. Like my constituents, I have, sadly, been on the receiving end of racism from time to time. To attend, as I did recently, a showing of "Schindler's List"—a memorable and awe-inspiring film—and then to open one's parliamentary post the next morning to find a document which purports to deny the holocaust is perhaps the ultimate obscenity.
The clauses seem to be divided between those which want to import a racial motive into certain crimes and those which want to increase the enforcement powers which are available to us. I admit that I approach them with mixed emotions and mixed feelings. Those who have proposed new clause 13 and some of the new clauses which have been tabled for the first time today are motivated by honourable feelings, and by the belief that something must be done to combat and reduce the rising tide of racism in our society, which principally affects the black and Asian communities, but which affects the Jewish community as well. They want to make it clear that that rising tide must be curbed.
It is simply unacceptable that the levels of enforcement, prosecution and action under our existing laws are so deplorably low. Such a situation motivates the belief—particularly in the minds of those who are on the receiving end of racist conduct—that the authorities are reluctant to act.
Some of those new clauses—particularly those which relate to motivation—have, in my view, a fundamental weakness, and for the supporters of the clauses to overlook that weakness does not assist their case.
New clause 13, with some of the other new clauses, establishes the need for a higher burden of proof for offences which are already against the law. Murder, violence, conduct against public order and harassment are already punishable severely under the present system, and that is right.
However, the clauses require an additional burden on the prosecution—to prove a racial motive. Every lawyer and anybody with any connection with the courts will

know that the hardest thing to prove is motive. One can easily prove that somebody did something, but to prove why they did it is far harder.

Ms Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman's view is incorrect. New clause 13 is drafted in such a way that, where there is a violent offence, prosecution would be on two counts—the violent offence itself and the racial motivation. It is possible in an aggravated offence that, where racial motivation is not proven, the charge of murder, manslaughter or whatever will still stand and will be prosecuted. We do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is in any way correct, and it is not supported by our legal advice.
As for racial motivation, the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that, if verbal abuse accompanies what are otherwise totally unpredictable attacks, the racial motivation may not be so difficult to prove, after all.

Mr. Sumberg: I have my doubts about that. It will be difficult to prove. I fear that, if prosecutions are brought under new clause 13 and the allied clauses, they will in all probability fail, which will send everyone the message, no matter what side they take in the argument, that the legislation is weak and not enforceable. Prosecuting, enforcing existing law and bringing offenders to book are the basic problems we face when dealing with racist crimes.
Before the recess, the only good reason that might have led me to support new clause 13 and similar clauses was that it would have been unacceptable if a major criminal justice Bill made no mention of the increase in racism that we see. This Bill is the centrepiece of the Government's law and order programme and covers every aspect of criminality—I do not need to go into them all—and it would have been wrong if it gave people no comfort and entirely ignored the fact that racism is increasing in Britain. Such a Bill would have sent a message to the people who suffer from such activity that society does not care, and is not prepared to act.
I am glad that there has been a change of mind during the recess. First, the Government have tabled new clause 125, which I warmly welcome. It will make the publication of racist literature an arrestable offence. Secondly, other hon. Members have tabled clauses that will enforce existing laws and deal with the loopholes.
Unless my right hon. Friend the Minister can convince me otherwise, I shall certainly support the loophole-plugging clauses, because they are essential. We must tackle the evil in society. For one reason or another, the right action is not being taken. We must consider the matter in that way. It is unacceptable for there to be a rise in membership of the hard right in Britain, which has always been a tolerant, just and humane society—a society that has welcomed immigrants to its shores for many years.
Equally, we must be careful about the legislation we pass. The present weaknesses in the law are that people are not willing to come forward and give evidence to the prosecution; that it is not being enforced properly; and that there are enforcement loopholes. Those are the evils and the mistakes that we must now tackle.
I welcome the fact that the Government have moved in some way. I hope that the Minister can move a little further, especially on enforcement. He and the House will


know that old axiom that, for evil to succeed, it is enough that good men and women do nothing. I hope that the House will not make that mistake.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: With you in the Chair, Madam Speaker, I moved a new clause to the Public Order Bill in Standing Committee G on April 10 1986, which would have created an offence of racial harassment. We debated the new clause on that day and received a sympathetic response from the then Minister, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G Shaw). He offered us talks on the subject to find out whether we could agree an approach.
However, the talks did not result in our finding a satisfactory way to deal with the matter, which has remained a festering sore during the eight years since, as it was before that date, which was why I moved the new clause, as the official representative of Her Majesty's Opposition in the Standing Committee.
The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) spoke about sending a message. Although this is a specific new clause with specific provisions, nevertheless, apart from the specific provisions, which I support entirely, another reason why I wish the new clause to be added to the Bill is that the House of Commons should send a message to the members of ethnic minority communities, of whom I regard myself as one, that Parliament considers crimes with a racial element as even more intolerable than other crimes.
All crimes, by definition, are to be objected to. Those who commit them are to be pursued and, where appropriate, punished, severely if necessary. But crimes related to the race, ethnic origin or religion of a victim are very different from crimes which relate to the vulnerability of a person or to the property of a person that a criminal wishes to take away from the victim.
4.30 pm
The victims of crimes of racial harassment are not attacked because they are rich—or poor but nevertheless have property that can be taken. They are attacked, they become the victims of crime, simply because they are black, come from an Asian community or are Jewish, or for some other reason relating to the uncontrollable factor of their birth, rather than, if I may put it this way, because of their eligibility as victims in possessing property that somebody else wishes to take away from them.
It is a peculiarly odious kind of crime. It is the reason why, if one may extrapolate, the apartheid regime in South Africa was so odious: it was based on racial discrimination. It is the reason why ethnic cleansing in Bosnia is so odious: the victims there are victims simply because of their religion. It is an issue to which it is time the House addressed itself in the most specific form. The House scarcely needs telling that there are far too many examples of racial harassment and victimisation, and far too many crimes committed against individuals and families simply because of their ethnic origin.
A little while ago, I took a group of Pakistani constituents from the Gorton division to see the chief constable of Manchester because they were so concerned that their wives could not go out shopping safely and their children could not go out to play safely. Problems of that kind occur regularly for my constituents—people who,

because they come from the Indian sub-continent and for no other reason, are penalised, harassed and attacked. I know of cases where petrol bombs have been put through letter boxes solely because of the victims' ethnic origin.

Mr. Sumberg: We would all deplore that sort of behaviour as quite dreadful, but the point at issue is that such things are already illegal—already criminal offences. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether prosecutions were brought, people were taken to court and sentences were imposed in relation to those matters. If not, that is a matter of legitimate complaint, but it is a matter of enforcement, and not something relating to the present state of the law.

Mr. Kaufman: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bury, South, sharing with me, as he does, the Jewish religion, should intervene in that way.
When I was a child, when anti-semitism was a great deal more overt than it often is now, in Leeds there were people who discriminated against me and other Jews with slogans, calling out, "Dirty Jew!" and insults of that type. In my constituency, my Pakistani constituents have to put up not only with being victims of the type of offence that I have described, but with being verbally insulted because of their ethnic origin, with having graffiti written on walls, and with the accompaniment of the criminal offence by a racial element which aggravates the nature of the offence.
In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bury, South, some of the offences were pursued; some have resulted in prosecutions, some have not. That is not because the police are in any way remiss. The police do their best, and when they can pursue such offences, they do.
However, the question is not whether the offenders have been pursued with the full rigour of the law—when they can be, they are. The question is whether the law should have greater rigour. That is what the new clause is about. It is about whether the law should say, "If you attack someone, that is odious, but if you attack someone because they are black or an Asian or Chinese or a Jew, that is even more odious than your attack on them per se." That is my argument, and that is what the new clause says.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I have been following my right hon. Friend's remarks extremely closely, and agree with them whole-heartedly. Does he agree that one of the problems is that the aspect in which the law is deficient, and which this new clause would cover, is in relation to those crimes that are petty in nature by themselves—petty criminal damage or petty vandalism—but over a period build up into a picture of intolerable harassment, and that many senior police officers say that one needs to tackle that picture with new legislation so that society can express its repugnance for offences of that type?

Mr. Kaufman: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When we debated inner cities, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), said, as the hon. Member for Bury, South is saying, that to do what we are seeking to do in this new clause would make it more difficult rather than easier to convict; but he completely misunderstands the nature of the new clause. The Under-Secretary of State seemed to imagine that the racial element had to be proved in order to convict. That is not so.


Our new clause says—this is why it is such a good new clause—that the racial element carries with it an additional punishment, to say to people, "You have committed a crime, and the law of the land as it existed before this Act said that that crime was punishable by such-and-such a sentence, but because you committed that crime, which had a racial concomitant, you shall be punished even more, to teach you and to send a message to the ethnic minority communities that, as they are specially vulnerable, they shall have special protection."
I am not saying for a moment that there are a huge number of crimes of racial harassment.

Mr. James Clappison: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to pursue my argument, I will gladly give way to him.
However many it is, it is too many. Over the years, there have been a considerable number of cases of the kind that I have described involving my Asian constituents. A number of Chinese people in my constituency face a particular problem—perhaps it is a problem in other parts of the country also—because young people congregate around fish and chip shops owned by the Chinese. One Chinese shop owner was murdered in his fish and chip shop, and another constituent has now been driven out of business. Patently racially motivated attacks upon his business are making his life an utter misery. It is utterly intolerable that somebody should be exposed to attacks such as that.
It is interesting that others are using racial harassment as a basis for policy. Manchester city council makes special provision for rehousing people who are victims of racial harassment. If somebody submits a rehousing application on the basis of racial harassment, that application receives special consideration, and rightly so.
Through my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, I know of too many instances of crimes committed against people because of their racial and ethnic origin. If we were to incorporate the amendment in the Act, it would be a signal from the House of Commons to all members of ethnic minority communities that Parliament is particularly and separately concerned about crime based on race or religion.
The Minister who replied to me in the debate eight years ago was sympathetic, but I am afraid that nothing whatever was done about the problem. I very much hope that today hon. Members—regardless of party; it is not a party issue—will agree that it is proper for the House of Commons to send the message, to use the words of the hon. Member for Bury, South, that racial harassment is intolerable. We must do whatever we can to expunge it from our society, and incorporating the new clause in the Bill is a very good way of going down that road.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is speaking for the Opposition in this debate, for adjourning the debate on racial matters the other evening when it might have been concluded. It has enabled a majority of members of the Home Affairs Select Committee to agree to some recommendations which we have tabled as amendments to the legislation.
The Home Affairs Select Committee believes that racism, in all its forms, is an evil and destructive force in our multiracial society. There is no doubt that it is

spreading and that it has to be stopped. As the pressures build in the liberated eastern European countries following the break-up of the Soviet empire, so ethnic divisions are building up all over Europe, often resulting in ethnic cleansing and wars. Inevitably, we have seen a substantial increase in the number of refugees travelling from one country to another and immigration to countries which have not seen immigration on such a large scale before.
So, too, will the pressures of racism inevitably grow and spread to the United Kingdom. The Committee believes that before that happens we in Britain must realise the likely extent of that evil and start to put up our defences as strongly as we can so that the worst excesses at least can be avoided and this nation can maintain its reputation for being tolerant and decent.
The need for good race relations has always been a primary interest of the Home Affairs Committee and we reported on the matter in 1982, 1986 and 1989. Since then, there have been shocking attacks, murder and violence and the Committee has taken a large amount of evidence from all quarters. We have not yet finalised our report or agreed on all our recommendations, but I am grateful to my colleagues for dealing with this matter with some urgency so that a majority of Committee members, at any rate, have agreed to certain recommendations and therefore amendments to the legislation.
I shall deal with those recommendations under three headings: racially motivated violence, racial harassment which is less than a violent attack, and incitement to racial hatred by such means as hate mail. With regard to racially motivated violence, it is a question of whether violence that is racially motivated should or should not attract a heavier penalty. Most of us believe that we may be able to deter racist attacks by the threat of greater punishment. Of course, some people say that all attacks are criminal and should be punished whatever the motivation and that separating racial motivation is unnecessary and wrong. This has broadly been the Government's line in the past.
4.45 pm
The majority of members of the Home Affairs Committee do not agree with that line. We believe that not only does the identification of racism send the positive signal referred to by the right hon. Member for Gorton to the ethnic minority communities in this country that the law is treating racism seriously, but that an assault motivated by racism is more socially divisive and corrosive of the very fabric of our tolerant society and, for that reason, is itself more serious.
The courts agree with that thinking, as does the existing law. A judge is allowed to take account of aggravating factors, as well as mitigating factors, in passing sentence and racial motivation is understood to be an aggravating factor. Because of this, some of the amendments would create an obligation to put before the court all evidence of racial motivation.
The majority of members of the Home Affairs Committee believe that the matter is so serious, and will become increasingly more so, that the present state of the law is simply not enough. We therefore suggest that new clause 127 should create five new offences of racially motivated assault. This would signal even more strongly to the ethnic communities that we intend to treat the matter more seriously through the power to impose a more


substantial sentence, which is why the Commission for Racial Equality and other organisations are in favour of the measure.
But there is another very important justification. In my view, the police will be likely to search for and find racial motivation only if they are required to do so to fulfil the requirements of a separate offence. Furthermore, if such an offence is to receive a stiffer penalty, a jury should decide whether an attack has been racially motivated. It should not be left to the judge to decide, any more than we leave it to the judge to decide whether the seriousness of an attack satisfies section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or whether it should be a lesser offence under section 20, or an even lesser offence under section 47. A jury should decide the extent of the seriousness of offences of violence.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I am listening with great interest to his argument. Does not the point that he has just made go to the weakness of new clause 13, in that there is a muddle as to whether it creates a new offence?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree that clarity is all-important, particularly if we want to send the right signals to those who would commit racially motivated offences or those who are the unfortunate victims of such offences.
Once a jury has decided that a racially motivated offence has been committed, the judge must give effect to the jury's verdict. It is less than fair if the decision about whether the evidence is good is left to a judge rather than the jury set up to take precisely that decision. If I were accused of a crime of violence and it was alleged that the crime was racially motivated, I would want the jury to decide that point. I would not want the decision to be taken away from the jury and the judge to be invited to decide whether the evidence that he had heard warranted an increased sentence. If there were no question of an increased sentence, I agree that it would not matter. But an increased sentence because of racial motivation must, in fairness, be decided by a jury.
That seems to be so self-evident that I find difficulty in dealing with the objections to it. At first, Ministers and others told the Select Committee that a racially motivated offence of violence might prevent conviction because, although the principal matter of violence may be proved, if the racial motivation was not proved, a man who was undoubtedly violent would be acquitted. That problem is simply avoided by charging two counts in the alternative: first, single manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, wounding, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or common assault; and, secondly, racially motivated manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, wounding, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or common assault. The added sentence for a racial attack would be passed only if the jury decided that the racially motivated alternatives applied.
We were also told that producing such evidence would require more work by the police. Well, should it not? If racism is an evil that is spreading and needs to be stopped, should not the police be encouraged to dig out the evidence that would support their allegation? It will not be difficult for the police to decide whether to charge, as was suggested in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. It will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether the offence is racially motivated. That is what it is

there for and what it does every day of the week. It should not be excused away on the basis that it would be a burden on the police.
In any event, if there is a dispute about whether a sentence should be increased because an attack has been racially motivated and the judge is in doubt about the strength of the evidence, he can call for a Newton hearing that will require evidence to be produced so that he can make that judgment. That means that the police must have gone to the effort of finding out whether there was sufficient evidence of racial motivation.

Mr. Kaufman: What worries me about the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that he seems to fall into the very trap which the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) alleges against new clause 13—that it would be more difficult to convict in the first place under the hon. and learned Gentleman's new clause. He argues that the police would have to delve further in order to obtain evidence that would justify a jury's offering a guilty verdict. New clause 13 says that evidence of the crime should be sufficient to justify a guilty verdict, whereas evidence of racial motivation should be an aggravating element in the sentence.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I cannot immediately find new clause 13, so I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's point. I do not care whose clause supports it, but it must be clear that it is for juries to decide whether there is sufficient evidence of racial motivation. In the first place, it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether the police have sufficient evidence of racial motivation—if they have not, an increased sentence should not be imposed because of it.
If they have, the Crown must prove racial motivation not just on one count in an incident, because I agree that a prosecution may fail if there is only one count with two elements. There must be two offences in the alternative so that the jury can decide, on the basis of evidence, whether an offence is racially motivated. Whether an alternative is put in the indictment will depend on whether the Crown Prosecution Service considers that any evidence of racial motivation sustains account. That is how the logic and practice of the courts would work out.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing himself into a technical corner. It is clearly emerging from the way in which he expounds his new clause that it would be more difficult to convict for a crime of assault unless the crime of assault contains a racial element. It is therefore inherent in his argument that somebody who may have committed a crime of assault may go free because there is insufficient evidence of a racial element.
That is not so under new clause 13, where evidence that an assault has been committed per se will be sufficient to justify conviction. The merit of our new clause is that if, that evidence having been submitted, there is additional evidence of a racial element, the judge could expand the sentence. That is why our new clause is better than the hon. and learned Gentleman's. However, if our new clause falls, I shall vote for his simply because I want something in the Bill, however inadequate it may be.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have now refreshed my memory about new clause 13. It may confuse the issue. We want a jury to


convict if it is sure that there was an offence of manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, wounding, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, or common assault, and to convict of the alternative offence if it is sure that there was a racially motivated element. Once those two elements are put into one count, the jury will talk the whole count round.
If it concludes that it is unhappy about the evidence of a racial element, it may rub off on its conclusion about the assault itself. That is why there is merit in what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary told the Committee about the possibility that a jury would acquit, despite the fact that there was sufficient evidence of an assault.
I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Minister to accept this, but those of us who have practised in the courts with jurors for 30 years know that, from time to time, they say, "We are not too sure about the whole of this count," and they drop the lot. So, although new clause 13 is not wrong, it runs a risk that would be avoided by separating the two counts as I have suggested. Moreover, the person convicted of the crime would know that the jury was sure of the racial motivation and had not simply been swept along by the offence itself and thought, "We do not care whether the offence was racially motivated; that person must not go free." In addition, the ethnic community will know, from the separate offence, that the law takes the matter seriously. In those circumstances, the Select Committee on Home Affairs—not all of us, but the majority—decided that an offence of racially motivated attack was justified.

Mr. Clappison: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

5 pm

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I hesitate to give way as I have received a sign that I should speed up and there are two other offences that I want to mention.
Is there a need for a new offence of racial harassment to deal with the drip, drip, drip effect of constant harassment? The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Commission for Racial Equality, the anti-racist alliance and a number of others all say yes. At present, section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 deals with all sorts of harassment, not just racially motivated harassment. However, we were told that there were a number of drawbacks.
When we visited the racial unit in Plumstead, the police officers told us that it was not always possible, when bringing a charge, for the prosecution to satisfy a court that a person intended his words, behaviour or action to be threatening, abusive, or insulting under the meaning of the Public Order Act. Even if the person was aware that that might be the result, if he did not intend for it to be so, he was not guilty. The police officers suggested that an objective test would be sensible. If a reasonable man would consider that such acts, deeds and words were likely to cause such a result, that should constitute the necessary intent required under the Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I do not want to delay my hon. and learned Friend too long as I know that the House wishes to make progress. However, I think that both my hon. and learned Friend and the police officer to whom he spoke at Plumstead have not

looked carefully at section 5 of the Public Order Act. It is not a matter of intent, but whether something is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: That was how it was put to us. We considered it and recognised that as one of the criticisms.
A second criticism was made that the offence under section 5 took no account of the seriousness of many of the acts that were taking place, such as the daubing of swastikas, or putting excreta through a door because a person was a Jew, Muslim, Pakistani or Bangladeshi. I shall not list all the particularly repulsive behaviour that is manifestly racially motivated, but does not necessarily call down under the existing law a sentence which responds to its serious nature.
The third criticism made was that it was an arrestable offence only if the offender repeated his behaviour in the sight of a policeman after a policeman had warned him to stop. The fourth criticism was that the offence attracted a maximum fine of only £1,000. We therefore considered that section 5 was inadequate to deal with the important subject of racial harassment.
The proof of that lies in the fact that, despite the increase in racial incidents—however many there are, the number has been increasing—there has been no increase in the number of charges brought or convictions recorded. As a result, we decided that it would be sensible to toughen the law, which is the basis of our new clause 100. It takes into account all those matters, particularly the one to which my right hon. Friend the Minister has just alluded.
Part III of the Public Order Act deals with incitement to racial hatred. The most commonly used sections are 18, which deals with words or displays or behaviour, and covers race hate mail, and section 19, which is intended to deal with publishing or distributing written material. We were told that the amount of racist literature was increasing. In the appendix to its report the Select Committee will publish some examples of the repulsive racist material. I shall not delay matters by referring to them now.
It is inevitable that, as boundaries come down under the single market, more such filth will cross from countries in Europe to Britain. There were strong criticisms of the working of the present legislation, particularly from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which said that the existing legislation had not proved effective in countering the tide of anti-semitic and other racist literature. It sent us an enormous amount of the sort of literature being circulated.
Three criticisms were levelled at us about that specific aspect of the Publicx Order Act. The first was that a prosecution could not be instigated without the consent of the Attorney-General. There was a feeling that the Attorney-General sometimes decided that a prosecution should not go ahead for vaguely political reasons—perhaps because it would cause more conflict or distress to do so. Although we had absolutely no reason to think that Attorneys-General had ever made decisions other than perfectly correctly and properly, it seemed to us that there was nothing much to be gained from placing the Attorney-General in the invidious position of having to make such choices.
The Attorney-General already has many problems on his plate without having to go through the countless number of allegations and make decisions. We saw no reason why the Director of Public Prosecutions, together


with the Crown Prosecution Service, should not make the decisions in those, as in nearly all other, matters. That was our recommendation and it forms one of our amendments.
The second criticism was that the incitement to racial hatred provision did not provide a power of arrest. A person who distributes such material by post cannot easily be found. If there is no power of arrest, by the time that the police arrive at the premises from which they think the material is being distributed the birds have fled and all the forensic signs of their culpability have dried up and disappeared.
We listened to the evidence given to us by a very senior officer at Scotland Yard, Commander Allinson, who was worried about the lack of power of arrest. It seemed to us that if we could provide the power of arrest and the police could act quickly, they could obtain all sorts of forensic evidence that might specifically identify the person responsible. At present the police lack those powers.
The third criticism involved the subject of intention. There has to be an intention to stir up racial hatred and only an objective test would be likely to result in a sufficient number of prosecutions. That was part of the recommendation contained in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth).
There were other issues; I shall highlight one that formed the basis of an amendment that we tabled. Under part II of the Public Order Act, senior police officers have the right to impose conditions on, and the Home Secretary has the power to ban, marches, processions and demonstrations if they feel that they might result in serious public disorder, disruption to the life of the community and so on. But the Act does not cover marches and processions involving race hatred. Therefore, the police felt that they were not always able to respond to the community's concerns about marches by right-wing groups which did not, perhaps, result in violence, but which contributed to the climate of fear and hatred among the ethnic minority. Therefore, we have recommended that the Government amend the Public Order Act so that it covers a march or procession invoking the spread of race hatred.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs has attempted to be constructive. If we are right and racism is spreading, is serious and can only get worse, we must do something more about it than the existing law, which has been inadequate. We have come forward with our constructive proposals, to which I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will respond positively.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The House wants to make progress, and as I must say much in response to speeches made today and before the Easter recess, I hope that it may help if I intervene now.
Since we adjourned this debate before Easter, there have been additional amendments from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and some of his colleagues on the Select Committee. I was interested to read them and I listened with care to my hon. and learned Friend's remarks.
I am sorry that we could not have the Select Committee's report before debating this batch of amendments. It is the Committee's evidence, thoughts and findings rather than its drafting skills from which the Government would have liked to benefit before the debate.

I hoped—as I know the Select Committee had intended, before it was sidetracked on to another issue—that the report would be published before Christmas.
The Government always take what the Select Committee has to say with great seriousness—doubly so when it involves a difficult subject such as this, which the Select Committee studied for more than a year. Obviously it would be much better for us to reach our own final conclusions after studying its report rather than before.
I am glad that one amendment in this batch—new clause 97—gives the police power of immediate arrest in cases of incitement to racial hatred, which chimes with our own thinking.
The Government tabled their own version in new clause 125. It is drafted differently and I believe more suitably, but achieves the same effect. It will enable the police to pursue more effectively not just those who distribute, but, through them, those who produce the appalling material on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Marshall) focused our attention in his Adjournment debate before Easter, and against which, inter alia, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) directed his private Member's Bill. I am pleased to meet one of their particular objectives now.
Before I turn to new clause 13 and the other amendments selected, I will say something about the overall statistics for racial violence and racial harassment—about which the hon Members for Walsall (Mr. Winnick) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and in particular the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who provided a revealing breakdown of such incidents recorded by the Metropolitan police, spoke.
When I gave evidence to the Select Committee last July, I made an estimate of 130,000 to 140,000 racial incidents a year, based on data obtained from the 1992 British crime survey. Grossing up the responses from that survey sample for the total ethnic minority population gave that estimate of the number of crimes and threats in 1991 thought by the victim to have been racially motivated.
Both the survey and police data such as those quoted by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland suggest that only a minority of incidents involved physical attacks—and, of those, a much smaller proportion were serious. The rest were made up of abusive language, criminal damage and other unpleasant behaviour.
I well understand why hon. Members contrast that estimate of 130,000 incidents with the 8,000 incidents recorded by the police, but the work done suggests that perhaps 50,000 incidents were reported to the police but not recorded as racial, either because the victims did not mention it as such or the police failed to note that they did.
Clearly, it is not possible to know how many of those crimes resulted in prosecutions, but they will have been dealt with on the same basis as similar crimes not felt to be racially motivated. All offences of violence are obviously priorities for the police and are pursued with vigour, but for offences at the other end of the scale, there may be no accessible evidence to identify and successfully prosecute the perpetrator of non-violent harassment—even if it is reported, which it generally is not.
The racial attacks group is currently specifically examining the way in which the police compile their statistics. We need them to be as full and accurate as possible and to be compiled on the same basis between


forces. We also want to encourage other agencies to use the same categorisation, so we shall know that we are comparing like with like.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd: Not at this moment, because I have not gone deep into my remarks. I shall do so later, if the hon. Gentleman still wishes to make a point.
The British crime survey did not show an increase in perceived racial incidents as a proportion of all crime between 1988 and 1992, when the questions were first asked. Whether there has been an increase between 1992 and 1994 should be revealed in the next edition of the survey, which is due to be published later this year.
The apparent sharp increase in racial crime recorded by the police between 1988 and 1992 can be explained, at least in part, by increased efforts by the police to improve their monitoring and recording procedures. I refer in particular to the guidance issued to all forces in 1991. As a result, all police forces have adopted the Association of Chief Police Officers' definition of a racial incident. Racial motivation is flagged up in the report of any incident in which the police officer, victim or any third party believes there to have been a racial element. That certainly broadens the definition and brings more offences within its scope.
It is also obvious that the more successful the police in encouraging reporting, the more the number of incidents recorded will increase, without there necessarily being any underlying increase in the number of offences committed. Does the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) wish to intervene now?

Mr. Vaz: Unfortunately, the Minister is using arguments that he used before, in speaking of classifications, categorisations and definitions. Does he accept that racial attacks are occurring on the streets of Britain and are increasing? Does he accept that they are affecting the lives of many black and Asian people? The Government should not hide behind delaying tactics. It is vital that something is done urgently to protect those people.

Mr. Lloyd: The Government are hiding behind nothing. The Government want to be effective, which is why I am trying to lay out the best information that we have. I do not deny that there are a great number of attacks. I shall refer to that point shortly. Perhaps it was unnecessary to give way to the hon. Gentleman
I do not rule out in particular that publicity and counter-demonstrations in the wake of the British National party victory in Tower Hamlets provoked more mindless thugs to indulge in more racial thuggery. I am sure that, for a long time, ethnic minority communities and some sections of the white community have suffered racial attacks and harassment. What has changed is the declining readiness of those sections of the community to tolerate such treatment, and the growing interest and concern of the rest of the community.
I am certain that the new clauses cover serious matters and I return exactly to the point that the hon. Member for Leicester, East was trying to press. I do not believe that there is any real difference of view between both sides of the House as to our abhorrence of racial violence and our recognition of the hurt and fear that racial harassment can

bring to individuals, families and communities. Nor do I believe, after reading the new clauses with care, and having listened with interest to what was said in support of them today and previously, that there is any difference between us on the range of violent or cruel behaviour that the law should punish.
All violence is criminal, whether the assailant and victim are the same colour or of different colours, and whether the motive is racial hatred, anger at women or contempt for the weakness of the elderly and disabled. I am glad that the Opposition, in their new clause 13, no longer propose to distinguish between violent crimes—at least as far as the offence is concerned. There is nothing in new clause 13 about a separate offence of racial violence, and that is progress.
I am sorry that good sense is not carried over into the subsections on harassment. Again, there appears to be no real difference between us on what antisocial behaviour should be covered by the law. In fact, the very words of subsection 2(1)(a) are lifted directly from the Public Order Act 1986.
However, subsection 2(1)(b) seeks to go further and specifically adds the words
trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant … is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
I do not believe that it would do much for race relations to create a new offence that has the potential of new clauses 13 and 90 to render certain trespass and nuisance behaviour criminal only when carried out on racial grounds. I do not believe that that would do anything for anyone.
In practical terms, it would be difficult to imagine examples in which such actions could be proven to be racially motivated, unless there was an explicit racial overtone to the behaviour. Simply walking across a garden would not be sufficient without, say, accompanying abuse or implied threat. Of course, if a person were to be verbally abusive, insulting or act in a threatening or harassing way, regardless of whether they were trespassing or not, section 5 of the Public Order Act is already there under which such behaviour may be prosecuted.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has something in mind that is not covered by existing law. If not, I have to say to her that, although her new clause gives the first impression of a tough new extension of the law, it will do nothing better to protect, the victims of racial offences. If she does have something in mind that is not covered by existing law, I would genuinely like to consider it. But where I especially disagree with these new clauses is that they seek to do for harassment what, as I observed approvingly, Opposition Members wisely no longer seem to seek to do for violence: create a specific and separate offence of racial harassment.
It is always hard to prove motive—harder, I suspect, than many hon. Members allow. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) was right about that. If that is so and the court finds the racial motive unproven beyond reasonable doubt, should there be a conviction for a standard offence, the judge, in sentencing, will not be able to take racial motivation into account and will have limited scope for taking into account any other racial element.
I fear that writing into the law an additional penalty for racial motive, as in new clauses 13, 50, 89 and 127, may have the opposite effect in an uncomfortably large number of cases to that intended by those who tabled the new clauses. It makes even less sense to do that, as there is


already a duty on judges and magistrates to take into account the aggravating circumstances surrounding an offence. Indeed, that was written into the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It obviously includes racial hostility and the vulnerability of the victims.
It is plain, both from judges' summing. up and the penalties handed down in a growing number of cases, that the courts are taking the racial element firmly into account. The recommendation for minima of 22 and 25 years for the racial murders of Fiaz Mirza, Saddik Dada and Mohammed Sarwar show that the courts are prepared to act when the evidence is there.

Ms Ruddock: I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying. Is he able to tell the House how many of the offences that have been prosecuted under section 5 of the Public Order Act have been found to be on racial grounds? Does he have the figures? Will he tell us how effective the current law is?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot, but I would like to be able to. We are currently looking to see how that might be managed so that, as I said earlier, all cases would be flagged up so that we know what happens to them. We could then create those figures at the end of the year. Because there is no separate offence of racial harassment, those figures do not exist at the moment, so I cannot say how many of the cases were overtly racial and in how many of them that factor was taken into account by the court in sentencing.
The racial attacks group, which includes the Commission for Racial Equality and the Crown Prosecution Service as well as the police, is looking at that so that we can provide such information. I do not believe, however, whatever information it produces, that these matters are best handled by legislation, not merely or primarily for the reasons that I have already given, but because of the messages that it will send to the world outside—the very point that was made by the right hon. Member for Gorton.

Mr. Kaufman: I suspect that, somewhere in a pigeon hole in the Home Office, there is a brief for Ministers to use on this occasion. It was also used by the former Minister of State on 10 April 1986 to reject the proposals of the Opposition at that time. No doubt if the Opposition have to vote with Conservative Members and are not successful today, it will be fished out on a future occasion, too.
The Minister has not responded to the prime point of the argument. He says that judges are, of course, at liberty to take into account a racial element when considering a sentence. Being at liberty is very different from being required to take into account a racial element in a crime. Parliament needs to send a signal to members of the ethnic minorities in this country that Parliament has a special concern for them. I hope that, before the Minister sits down, he will respond to that argument, which so far he has failed to do.

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman made two points. The first was the familiarity of some of the arguments that I use. I suggest to him that a good argument retains its freshness, even over the years. On his second point, if he reflects back to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, he will see that the courts are not simply at liberty to take into account what they want, but that they are required to take in fully

all the circumstances that relate to the case which indicate aggravating features. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to refresh himself on that.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I must make some progress. If there is a little more time later, I will come back. I want to say a little more about this point.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
I realise that many hon. Members support a separate offence of racial violence or harassment because of the message that they believe that it would send. They believe that it would reassure ethnic minorities that such crimes against them are taken very seriously. But I suspect that there would be a reaction if, having led them to believe that the law was being strengthened, it was discovered to be neither broader nor more effective and unable to catch a wider range of racially motivated offences.
To be fair, from my strictures I should except new clause 100, which has been tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, which would replace section 5 of the Public Order Act. It has the great merit of being colour blind. But my approval ends there, for it would make a criminal offence of any trespass or nuisance whereby any occupant of any dwelling is likely to becaused harassment, alarm or distress—so a person who lights a bonfire whose smoke distresses their neighbour, or lets their dog bark incessantly or stray into their neighbour's property and damages it, could be committing a criminal offence. It could, I suppose, apply to intrusive building work.
What is more, the requirement in the current section 5 of the Public Order Act for the conduct to be intentional, or at least for the person engaging in it to have known that harassment, alarm or distress were likely to result, has been deleted. That was not in fact the test that my hon. and learned Friend and the officer whom he met in Plumstead believed was the test in section 5 of the Public Order Act. Such unneighbourly stresses can, I know, be extremely aggravating, but I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend had them in mind and, if he had, whether he intended to be so sweeping in his extension of the criminal law where the civil law has traditionally provided the remedy.
Perhaps it was that kind of behaviour that the hon. Member for Deptford will tell me that she had in mind for new clause 13(2)(1), but not when it was caused by accident—because it is confined to race—or straight malice, but only when it was racially motivated.
But my fundamental criticism of new clause 13 and others is not that they are generally ineffectual, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South said they were, in providing extra protection—they are. My criticism is that I do not believe that Parliament should construct two categories of harassment any more than two categories of violence. It must be wrong to create the impression that there are extra protections for ethnic minorities that are not available for, say, the elderly and the disabled.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: I shall give way in a moment, but to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
The danger is particularly well illustrated by the ill-judged subsection (2) of new clauses 13 and 127, which would require an additional penalty for racial violence which may exceed the maximum penalty otherwise prescribed for that offence. Indeed, under new clause 127, the assailant in a racially motivated common assault could get a sentence 10 times the maximum for any other common assault.
Apart from giving the court power in new clause 13 to impose an additional penalty beyond the maximum set by Parliament for the offence—a departure from every other area of our law where maxima are always enshrined in statute and set to allow for the worst possible example of a particular offence—these new clauses would send a clear message that an assault on the disabled, the elderly or a small child, however cowardly or brutal, could never be punished as severely as it was possible to punish a racial attack.

Mr. Maclennan: I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that the rights of ethnic minorities are considered under our international commitments—through the European convention on human rights—as matters especially to be protected against discriminatory behaviour. Motivation is also something which the English common law recognises as significant in determining the appropriateness of a penalty; it is what distinguishes certain types of homicide from murder. It is bizarre that he should say as a matter of principle that the Government are setting their face against treating racially motivated attacks as different in kind from other forms of attack. Surely that is mistaken.

Mr. Lloyd: I am not saying that they are not sometimes worse than other attacks, and I am certainly not saying that the courts should not take that into account. Indeed, I spent some time saying that the courts did take that fact into account and that it was their job to do so. If race was an aggravating factor, it should be implicit in the way in which the court determines the sentence.
However, I am saying that to give a specific additional sentence for a racial attack when there could be worse attacks on, for example, the elderly, the disabled or children, and on others who are not disabled, elderly or young, sends the wrong message. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and some other Opposition Members cannot understand that. The sense of fairness of the community as a whole is quite different from how the hon. Gentleman perceives it. I do not want, and I was sure that no hon. Member would want, to send such a crudely divisive message to the country.
We do not want to bring about circumstances in which a mugged pensioner could say, however unfairly, that if he had been black, his assailant would have had to receive a much heavier sentence, or in which a victimised family, suffering regular harassment from neighbours, could say, "Of course, if we had been a different colour, the police would have had to do something." That would be doubly foolish when the basic reach of the law, certainly where violence is concerned, remains the same under new clause 13 and others, whether or not there is a racial motive.

So why lead the public to believe otherwise? Why introduce a potent source of misunderstanding and resentment? I suspect that to do so was considered an easy way for the Opposition to respond apparently decisively to ethnic minority fears and the appalling experiences that so many have indeed suffered.
I do not impugn the integrity of the hon. Members who have put their names to the new clauses or who have spoken in support of them. I am sure that they are utterly sincere in their desire to provide better protection for ethnic minorities and to build the good race relations on which it must finally depend—it is their wisdom and good sense that I question.
Although new clause 13 and others would no doubt give immediate encouragement to ethnic minorities, it would surely bring cynicism in its train when they began to notice that it secured few, if any, extra prosecutions, especially when it was clear that the price had been to sour race relations and to provide a handle to those who like to argue that the law gives black people a privileged position anyway.

Mr. Vaz: Who are those people?

Mr. Lloyd: There are plenty of them, alas. If the hon. Gentleman has not met them, he has led an extraordinarily sheltered life. A number of them voted for the British National party in Tower Hamlets at the previous local election.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Of course my right hon. Friend has a point and it is one which should be heard, but is it not also a reason for dismantling all our race relations legislation, whether civil or criminal, because the effect of that is presumably to create exactly the same reactions as he says are so abhorrent to us now?

Mr. Lloyd: That is of course one of the downsides, but, as my hon. and learned Friend will know, without such laws against discrimination, discrimination would not be unlawful. However, harassment and violence are unlawful, so he is not comparing like with like.
While I am waxing so critical of the content of the new clauses, I shall mention briefly what is not in them and, despite what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said in her intervention, something that is certainly not there but which would genuinely benefit ethnic minorities and others if it were. The Government believe that the one aspect that the law does not sufficiently cover is low-level, repetitive abuse, name-calling or nuisance which as a one-off might be no more than a minor legal breach and on which no court is likely to come down with great severity, but which cumulatively is deeply hurtful, building fear, anxiety and distress, blighting the lives of individuals and families and poisoning relationships between different sections of the community.
It is in dealing with such persistent harassment, which can cause such misery, that I believe the law needs to be extended with appropriately severe penalties. I have said so many times in recent months, including at the Dispatch Box, but it is not easy to formulate an amendment that we can be sure would focus effectively on the offence without unwelcome side effects. I am, however, confident that we can produce such an amendment and the Government would have liked to do so on Report, but the complexities have proved too great.

Mrs. Roche: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon Lady wants to tell me that new clause 13 covers this point, she can do so and then I shall continue.

Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. New clause 13(2)(1)(a) refers to the use of
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour …or … any writing, sign or other visible representation
that is abusive or insulting, which is exactly the type of behaviour to which I referred in my intervention. We are talking about the swastika daubed on a wall, threatening behaviour against a black family or a car aerial being vandalised. New clause 13 seeks to deal with such harassment.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady was not listening when I said that the words that she has just cited admiringly are already law—they have been lifted wholly from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I am trying to tell the hon Lady that those words are insufficient to deal with cumulative low-level harassment which causes so much harm and has such a corrosive effect.

Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I listened very carefully to what he was saying. New clause 13 would tighten existing legislation and enable it to deal with exactly the sort of incident to which I referred. There has been a failure on the part of the Home Office to listen properly to what is being said not only by Opposition Members but by some of the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Lloyd: The failure is that of the hon. Lady to read what is on the statute book.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I cannot give way.
I must stress that the improved law would not be confined to racial harassment but would extend to other forms of harassment, although ethnic minorities may be the chief beneficiaries. I should be happy if that were so as I am quite sure that they are the chief sufferers. The important point would be that the same protection would exist for any repeatedly harassed individual or family, whatever the motive for the harassment.

Mr. Marshall: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way as I have already done so too often in view of the time available.
I share with all hon. Members who have spoken their patent desire to make the law work more effectively. The chief impediment to prosecution is lack of evidence which will stand up in court, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South. That must be a matter for the police and local agencies working effectively together, and it is why earlier this year I was happy to speak in support of the CRE campaign urging victims to report incidents and, just as important, witnesses to come forward.
However, it is clear that the Public Order Act is used to very much greater effect in some spheres than in others. That is why the racial attacks group is also looking to see what can be learnt from those areas about the way in which good practice could be applied generally. It is not spectacular work, but it will prove far more helpful to

minority communities than any of the new clauses before us today, however impressive they may sound when dolled up in a superficial and self-indulgent press release.
As I said earlier, making the distribution of material that is likely to stir up racial hatred an arrestable offence will help the police to get to the source of the material and I hope that the House will support amendment No. 125. It follows that I have immediate sympathy for those sections of new clause 13 and new clause 100, which would provide the police with an immediate power of arrest for harassment. However, on reflection, I am afraid that I am not yet convinced that it would on balance help to do so.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act, to which the new clause relates, is used in a variety of circumstances for dealing with a broad spectrum of abusive and threatening behaviour in public places, not only racial harassment. It could, for example, be employed by the police when they have been abused and harassed by demonstrators. At present, the police must give the demonstrator a warning. I am not sure that the Opposition would want to do away with the necessity for that warning and perhaps find that many of those arrested turned out to be black or white protestors who were perhaps protesting over the BNP book shop in Welling. I am not convinced that the requirement for an opportunity to cool off is not useful all round, but I do not rule out the new clause. It needs further and wider discussion, which it will receive when the Select Committee is able to publish its report.
Again, I understand why new clause No. 89, spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), queries the role of the Attorney-General, whose approval is necessary before a prosecution can be brought under part III of the Public Order Act for stirring up racial hatred. As some hon. Members have observed, he has given his go-ahead to only 14 prosecutions, implying that, somehow, he has been preventing many more from being brought.
That is certainly not so. Only 19 cases have been referred to him and the ones with which he did not proceed were disallowed on the same grounds by which other prosecutions are denied—two because of insufficient evidence and three on public interest grounds. At least two of those cases were dismissed because of the age of the person who was alleged to have committed the offence. Again, I am quite sure that the lack of evidence on the identity of the authors of the racial material which would stand up in court is responsible for the small number of prosecutions in that area, perhaps because so much comes anonymously through the post or is imported.
There are other broader issues relating to the scope of part III of the Act which were raised by some Asian groups, by the Tabachnik report and most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley in his Bill. They involve important questions about where the balance should be struck between free speech, public order and group sensibilities. They are beyond the scope of the new clauses and thus the debate, but they are an area to which we must and will return when the Select Committee unveils its remedies.
Finally, in new clause 98, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and some colleagues on the Select Committee seek to strengthen section 12 of the Public Order Act which deals with processions. At present, a police officer may place conditions on a march if he believes that it may cause serious disorder, damage or disruption. I cannot see that it helps to add the ability to put conditions on a march on racial, religious or ethnic


grounds, as subsection (1) of my hon. and learned Friend's new clause would. It gives the police no new power or new guidance.
Subsection (2) of the new clause, however, would insert the stirring up of racial hatred as an additional criterion for imposing conditions on a demonstration. Again, it would add little more to the way in which the present law is being used. The police already use their powers to impose conditions on marches for example, to re-route them where necessary away from areas where large Asian populations live—not on the grounds of stirring up racial hatred, but for straightforward public order grounds.
It could be difficult to argue—perhaps it has occurred to my hon. and learned Friend—that a march of Nazi skinheads down Brick lane would stir the local population to racial hatred, but it may well cause them fear and distress and provoke angry and violent reactions. That is why the 1986 Act, with the effects of some demonstrations on ethnic minorities clearly in mind, introduced criteria to ensure that individuals can go about their business free from intimidation.
It seems that the police have the professional expertise and the powers under the current law to make the operational decisions needed. To ask them to assess the likelihood of racial hatred being stirred up would be much more difficult and subjective and would not, for the reasons that I have given, be of much help. Of course, where those taking part in a demonstration incite racial hatred, the police may take action under part III of the Act. On that matter, in due course, I would again like to see the considered opinion of the Select Committee on how marches may be better managed as part of the wider questions of group defamation and the stirring up of racial hatred in a society which values freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate.
I do not believe that new clause 98 would alter that balance as it would not give the police any useful additional powers. If it did anything, it would confuse the basis on which they are properly required to make an operational judgment as to the impact of a march on public order.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: As I have been talking of my hon. and learned Friend, I shall give way.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: We were asked to add those conditions by the police. If they do not understand the present law, what on earth is the likelihood of the ethnic minority communities in Britain understanding it?

Mr. Lloyd: I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend has spoken to some policemen. I would like to see the informed, complete, official response to the suggestions of the police and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Of course, we shall get that with the Select Committee report.
We have a limited time for the debate. I hope that I have managed to persuade the proposers of the new clauses that it would be better not to press them to a vote. If I have not, I must ask my hon. Friends to vote against them, except, of course, new clause 125, which I trust that the whole House will accept with acclamation.

Ms Diane Abbott: I rise to support new clause 13. The Minister asked why we should single out racial attacks for special legislative treatment—treatment that is not applied to attacks on disabled or elderly people. We should do so because nobody ever builds a mass political movement out of smashing those groups' windows—or out of spitting on them, assaulting them or killing them in their millions. In the lifetime of some hon. Members present in the Chamber, mass political movements in Europe have been built with the building blocks of individual acts of racial violence.
A responsible Government who were aware of the patterns of rising racial and fascist violence in Europe would see the need to send a message from Parliament to individual racists and fascists and to those terrorising black and Asian people saying that racism is a phenomenon—a social and political manifestation—that our society will not tolerate. Racial attacks ought to be singled out in the way set out in the new clause because of what they represent politically—a threat to the stability of society that no amount of individual attacks on elderly, poor or disabled people could ever represent. I am surprised that the Minister, who is normally a man of some sensitivity and insight, cannot see that simple point.
Britain's black and Asian communities wish that even at this late stage the Government will change their mind on the issue of racial harassment. They want to see the law changed first and foremost because no amount of legal quibbling and juggling with figures can bring home to people who do not experience racial attacks the fear and terror that individual acts of racial violence and low-level harassment can cause.
The Minister said that few acts of racial harassment are acts of violence. Tell that to Asian women who are trapped in their flats week in, week out because they are frightened to leave—because they are spat on, because they are shouted at and because they have graffiti on their doors. It is all very well to produce figures that say that those are not acts of violence, but for a woman who speaks little English and is frightened to leave her house for weeks, for months, for years, the situation is just as threatening as any individual act of violence.
Black and Asian people want new clause 13 to be accepted because we believe that many people underestimate the effect on individual communities of the fear of racial harassment and attacks. We want new clause 13 to be accepted because one of the problems with racial harassment is getting different communities in different places to report it. In my local Jewish community in Stamford Hill there is great fear and reluctance to report acts of racial violence to the authorities—and that goes for many different types of community in many different areas.
If Parliament made new clause 13 law, that would give the different ethnic minorities increased confidence to come forward and report acts of violence.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that while there is a sort of permissive element in whether the police report or treat an incident as a racially motivated crime, many people are afraid to report such incidents to the police? Does not too much depend on the discretion of individual police officers on desk duty at a particular time? The advantage


of our new clause is that it would force all police officers to take the issue of racial violence seriously, and thus give communities greater confidence in reporting the sort of horrors that my hon. Friend has rightly described.

Ms Abbott: I agree with my hon. Friend.
Britain's black and Asian communities want not crocodile tears from the Minister about how terrible such attacks are, but a recognition of the plight of tens of thousands of people, whether as communities or as individuals. Individuals can be trapped on estates, with one person being the only member of a particular minority. Those people want recognition of their plight. They want legislative action. They want an acknowledgement from the Government that individual acts are not merely random acts of violence, however reprehensible those may be, but represent the building blocks of a political tide. Unless the politicians of this country stand up against that tide it could bring to this country the sort of political movements and the sort of violence that we are now seeing in the rest of Europe.

Ms Ruddock: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak again.
When I opened the debate on the Opposition's new clause 13, on 28 March, I was mindful of two things. The first was the fact that the overwhelming weight of the evidence on racial attacks and harassment given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs was supportive of Labour's proposals in the new clause. The second was that every ministerial statement on the subject of racially motivated crime had displayed an extreme reluctance to legislate effectively on the issue.
My expectations both of the Minister and of the position of the Select Committee have been met in full today. It is clear that in tabling their new clauses members of the Select Committee have responded to community concerns and to expert opinion such as that of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which agreed with us that a range of new measures was required and should be tabled for Report.

Dame Jill Knight: I want there to be no misunderstanding about the fact that the Home Affairs Committee was divided six to four on the matter.

Mr. Corbyn: Name the four.

Dame Jill Knight: For various reasons that I shall not go into now, four of us strongly disagreed with the wisdom of what is now being suggested.

Ms Ruddock: Nothing that the hon. Lady has said changes the fact that there was a majority in favour. I was speaking especially of the expert evidence given to the Select Committee.
The range of measures tabled by those holding the majority view on the Select Committee, and the range of measures that we and other Opposition Members have tabled provide for enhanced penalties to be applied on proof of racial motivation in the commission of violent offences, and for the creation of new harassment and incitement offences.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) that if the racial motivation test is

applied, that motive will be sought by the police and by the courts, and it will be found where it exists. That is what is so essential about the test of racial motivation. That is why it should be mandatory.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton believes, as we do, that racial incidents have increased. The Minister did much to try to rubbish that notion, and to try to talk down the extent of the problem and the pain that it causes. He cited in evidence the British crime survey, but that deals with two racial groups in particular, and does not even consider racial motivation in offences committed against members of the Jewish community. There is no doubt in the minds of the experts dealing with the issue that such attacks and incidents are on the increase, and are very serious.
I further remind the Minister that other surveys have suggested that only one in 20 racial incidents is reported. I remind him that there are believed to have been 14 racially motivated murders in this country over the past two years. Yet when I asked a parliamentary question about homicide one of his ministerial colleagues told me that the police are
not specifically requested to note whether they consider racial motivation to be a factor".—[0fficial Report, 7 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 24.]
That is a disgrace. If the Minister feels that the huge number of racial incidents cannot be tested for the purposes of record surely at least the most serious violent offences should be categorised as to whether ethnic and racial motivations were a factor.
I remind the Minister that we do not know what the clear-up rates for racial incidents are. We do not know how effective the present law is, although most of us believe that it is entirely deficient. In another parliamentary answer I was told that there were
no plans to require the police to publish clear-up rates for racial incidents".—[Official Report, 11 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 414.]
The Minister's speech was a disgrace. There is a wide consensus on the range of new measures needed to deal with the rising incidence of racial attacks and harassment, yet the Minister gave us the most minimal of responses. Of course we shall support new clause 125, but he spoke about a new offence of persistent racial harassment. That is a totally inadequate response to all the evidence that has come before both the Select Committee and his own committee, and the evidence that has emerged in the Standing Committee and during the earlier debates on Report.
We may ask why the Government are bothering to do anything at all, as they deny all the evidence and expertise brought before them. I can tell the House why, because I have here a letter sent by the Home Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal, which says that there has been
intense public and Parliamentary pressure … for changes in the law
on racially motivated crimes.
The letter mentions the pressure that the Government are under not only from the official Opposition but from their own Back Benchers, and describes the Home Secretary's concern
that … the Government's position is likely to become untenable and at the very least open us to enormous criticism, especially once the urgent measures relating to stop and search powers I intend to introduce in the Bill become public. The proposed new powers are already being described in the minority press as recreating the discredited "sus" law and there are serious implications for both community relations and to public order if we are unable to present any positive counter-balance. It is


therefore important that the Government take the initiative on racial crimes if it is to counteract the belief amongst ethnic minority communities that we do not take their concerns equally seriously.
That is why the Government have proposed that most minimal of responses—because they are concerned about mounting pressures, and are deeply embarrassed because they have not been able to satisfy their own Back Benchers. More importantly, I believe that they understand that concern will be caused by the proposed new stop and search powers—concern that could properly be met by accepting the proposals of the official Opposition. Cynically, the Government seek to counteract the concerns of the ethnic minority communities, of which they are aware, by making the minimal proposal of a persistent harassment offence. That is a cynical move by the Government. It is totally unacceptable and it flies in the face of all the evidence that has been brought before them.
The letter does not try to persuade the Cabinet and the Prime Minister that racially motivated crime is on the increase, that it is serious and pernicious and that it needs to be dealt with effectively. It is a defensive, purely party political document and one that the Government, and the Home Secretary in particular, will regret writing.
It is absolutely unacceptable that the Government will not respond to new clause 13 in a more effective and sympathetic way. It is even more unacceptable that they cannot respond effectively to the new clauses that have been tabled by the Select Committee on Home Affairs on an all-party basis and with our support. The Government will remain deserving of our utmost criticism and condemnation and will continue to be under real pressure to deal with the matter in another place.
As Labour Members and so many of the Minister's colleagues have said, there is a need to do much more, but the Minister has not gone forward in any way to meet that need. He could not have heard the position spelt out more clearly than it was by the hon. and learned Member for Burton, who spoke to no fewer than five amendments dealing with racially motivated crime—or, indeed, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who spoke so movingly about the horrific offence of racial violence and racial harassment.
6 pm
Today, the Minister seemed to suggest that racial harassment would be a crime or would really hurt people only if it was repetitive. I tell him that once is enough: people who have been spat at, or who have had their homes daubed, or who have had violence perpetrated against them because of their colour or creed know that there is a need to strengthen the laws of this country.
The Minister says that the proposed measures would be divisive—that people will simply say that they would have a better deal from the law if they were black. Does he not appreciate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who aptly described the way in which this is a matter of organised violence against individuals on the basis of colour or creed? Does he not accept that a person who has been the subject of harassment or violent attack which is motivated on racial grounds is a victim twice over: once of the crime—the violence or whatever—and once of racial motivation? That is a double burden that must be borne by the victim and it is something for which a double penalty is appropriate.
We are not satisfied in any way by the Minister's explanation of why the new clauses tabled by the Select Committee should not be accepted. We will press them to a vote. More important, the Minister has not appreciated the strength of feeling and the weight of evidence on the issue. We shall pursue the issue wherever we must if the Minister continues to fail the ethnic minority communities with his attitude today.

Mr. Hartley Booth: The way in which the debate has proceeded makes it absolutely clear that all hon. Members are united about one thing: their detestation of racism and any form of anti-semitism. It is also obvious that initially many hon. Members welcomed the clause tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) for the obvious reason that many of us support it and there was unity of feeling about it with regard to my Racial Hatred and Violence Bill a few weeks ago. But life in politics moves on: a week in politics is a long time.
Over the Easter recess, we heard that the Government will go forward, although we have not heard any details of the proposals. I hope that the matter is not regarded as one of petty party political bickering. The issue is too important for party political bickering. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) accepted that persistent violence, persistent harassment and persistent incidents created an offence and a situation that needs to be dealt with. Apparently, that is what the Government will deal with—at least according to a leak last week.
Before hon. Members deride what I am saying, they should hear that what the Government intend to do is much more, much deeper and much more effective than new clause 13. Although we heard those good intentions derided a few moments ago, there is no doubt at all that Tory Members are deeply against any form of racism and that the measure brought forward—as we imagine from the leak that we read on the front page of The Daily Telegraph on Friday—will go much further.
Although initially Tory Members could perhaps be persuaded by new clause 13, on further consideration, and having heard what the Government will do, I feel that the new clause should be abandoned. Hon. Members should abstain from voting on new clause 13 and support what the Government propose.

Mr. Vaz: When the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) got up to speak, I thought that he would support new clause 13 because it is in keeping with the private Member's Bill that he introduced last year, of which I am a co-sponsor. He recognises, as Labour Members recognise, that it is important for the House to make a decision today that will send out to the black and Asian communities the message that we care about their plight in the current circumstances.
I was not going to speak in the debate until I heard the Minister's speech. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) I have a soft spot for the Minister, having dealt with him for many years when he was the immigration Minister. I say nothing more than "soft spot". Today, Labour Members who know the Minister and who have had dealings with him will be astonished by his extraordinary attack on the black and Asian community in Britain. Here is the Minister responsible for community relations. He is responsible for going to the black and Asian community week after week


—I have been at many engagements with him—and telling the community how much the Government support them. Today, he came to the Dispatch Box and put to the House this choice: we either support the white pensioner or the Asian mother. That is exactly what he said today.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I was simply saying that the law should not distinguish; it should take in the circumstances of the particular case.

Mr. Vaz: Here is the Minister who wriggled throughout his speech. He has already had a Select Committee report that was produced five years ago under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). I know about that report because I served on the Home Affairs Committee. Five years ago, the Committee took a great deal of evidence on the issue.
What did the Minister say today? He criticised the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) because his report is not ready, as though the Minister is waiting for the report before he can decide what to do about the issue. That is a disgrace for a Minister who is supposed to be protecting the people of Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman knows the statistics. He knows that in the time that it took him to speak today—20 minutes—another black or Asian family has been attacked in Britain in 1994.
We can all condemn racial attacks on fellow citizens, but the important thing is what we propose to do about them. The Minister said that he did not propose to do anything other than reclassify offences and wait for another report. He was waiting for new guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers. He would do everything under the sun except take proper action to protect the black and Asian community. That is what the right hon. Gentleman told the House.

Mr. Lloyd: What I said was that the Opposition's new clauses would not protect the black community, that they were ineffectual, pretentious and self-indulgent and would not help to solve a problem which I, like the hon. Gentleman, know is very real. It is a problem that deserves better argument than has been presented by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister now says that there is a problem. I am grateful for the fact that he has moved from his original statement, in which he questioned the extent of attacks in Britain.

Mr. Lloyd: I did not.

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman talked about estimates that were being made and said that criminal damage did not really matter as it was not a serious issue. He will be able to read the report of his words in Hansard. He was concerned only about the most serious attacks.
I know about these issues as I was subjected to attacks from the moment of my arrival in this country. As the representative of a constituency that is 70 per cent. non-Asian, I realise that it is very important that legislation on race issues be undertaken very carefully indeed. In this regard, Parliament must bring the nation with it. That is how I conduct my duties as a Member of Parliament. I represent everyone in my constituency.
There comes a time when the hand-wringing must stop —when the Minister must stop blaming the Select

Committee on Home Affairs and other agencies and start taking effective action. The right hon. Gentleman could have come to the House and made a statement about changing the law of which every hon. Member would have been proud. We live in a multicultural society. We are proud of Britain's achievements and want to make sure that they continue. Race relations legislation is based on the fact that a minority of people are subjected to racial attack. The House of Commons must protect those people and, indeed, white pensioners who are attacked, through effective law and order legislation. But the Government refuse to introduce such legislation. The matter is in the Minister's hands. He must stop wriggling and ensure that effective action is taken.
Finally, I want to tell the House a story about a person in London—not a constituent of mine—who came to see me two weeks ago. This gentleman came to Britain as a first-generation immigrant and established himself here. He now owns five chemist shops in the east end of London. When he was driving in the east end he was dragged out of his car and kicked and otherwise attacked, and he had to go to hospital for treatment. The Crown Prosecution Service refuses to prosecute those responsible on the ground that they are already the subject of a list of offences. It will not take effective action.
We must today send out, not just to the black and Asian community but to the country at large, the message that we are not prepared to do nothing. Action must be taken to protect our fellow citizens.

Mr. Stephen Byers: In a very short time I shall join my hon. Friends in voting for new clause 13. I speak as one of the majority of members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs who tabled new clause 127, which would create a new specific offence of racially motivated violence. The Chairman of the Select Committee—the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)—has addressed adequately the substance of the issues and the reasons for tabling the new clause. As the offence that would be created is very specific and very clear I should like, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to notify you formally that a majority of the Select Committee's members and, I believe, a large number of hon. Members in general would like to have a separate Division on new clause 127.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman would need the leave of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It appears that leave is refused.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The divided: Ayes 247, Noes 285.

Division No. 192]
[6.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bayley, Hugh


Adams, Mrs Irene
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Ainger, Nick
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bell, Stuart


Allen, Graham
Bonn, Rt Hon Tony


Alton, David
Bennett, Andrew F.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Berry, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Austin-Walker, John
Blair, Tony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blunkett, David


Barron, Kevin
Boateng, Paul


Battle, John
Boyes, Roland






Bradley, Keith
Heppell, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hoey, Kate


Burden, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Byers, Stephen
Home Robertson, John


Caborn, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hume, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hutton, John


Clapham, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jowell, Tessa


Corston, Ms Jean
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cousins, Jim
Keen, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dafis, Cynog
Khabra, Piara S.


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Darling, Alistair
Kirkwood, Archy


Davidson, Ian
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Denham, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Dixon, Don
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
McCartney, Ian


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Ms Angela
McFall, John


Enright, Derek
McGrady, Eddie


Etherington, Bill
McKelvey, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maclennan, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McWilliam, John


Fisher, Mark
Mahon, Alice


Flynn, Paul
Mallon, Seamus


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mandelson, Peter


Foulkes, George
Marek, Dr John


Fraser, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Galbraith, Sam
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Galloway, George
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Maxton, John


Garrett, John
Meale, Alan


George, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Miller, Andrew


Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mullin, Chris


Harvey, Nick
Murphy, Paul


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Henderson, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Hendron, Dr Joe
Olner, William





O'Neill, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Patchett, Terry
Spellar, John


Pendry, Tom
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pickthall, Colin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Pike, Peter L.
Steinberg, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Stevenson, George


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dennis


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Randall, Stuart
Wallace, James


Raynsford, Nick
Walley, Joan


Reid, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wareing, Robert N


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Watson, Mike


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Andrew


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Worthington, Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wright, Dr Tony


Short, Clare
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Soley, Clive





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clappison, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ancram, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkins, Robert
Couchman, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cran, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Baldry, Tony
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bates, Michael
Day, Stephen


Beggs, Roy
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dover, Den


Body, Sir Richard
Duncan, Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Booth, Hartley
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowis, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Faber, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fishburn, Dudley


Burns, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carttiss, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Chapman, Sydney
French, Douglas


Churchill, Mr
Gale, Roger






Gallie, Phil
Major, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, Sir George
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gorst, John
Merchant, Piers


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Grylls, Sir Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bemard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Lord, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sweeney, Walter


MacKay, Andrew
Sykes, John


Maclean, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Temple-Morris, Peter





Thomason, Roy
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trend, Michael
Willetts, David


Trimble, David
Wilshire, David


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Robert C. Hughes.


Watts, John

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 124

POWERS TO STOP AND SEARCH IN ANTICIPATION OF VIOLENCE

'.—(1)Where a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent reasonably believes that—

(a) incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his area, and
(b) it is expedient to do so to prevent their occurrence,

he may give an authorisation that the powers to stop and search persons and vehicles conferred by this section shall be exercisable at any place within that locality for a period not exceeding twenty four hours.

(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) above may be exercised by an inspector if he reasonably believes that incidents involving serious violence are imminent and no superintendent is available.

(3) If it appears to the officer who gave the authorisation or to a superintendent that it is expedient to do so, having regard to offences which have, or are reasonably suspected to have, been committed in connection with any incident falling within the authorisation, he may direct that the authorisation shall continue in being for a further six hours.

(4) This section confers on any constable in uniform power—

(a) to stop any pedestrian and search him or anything carried by him for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments;
(b) to stop any vehicle and search the vehicle, its driver and any passenger for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments.

(5) A constable may, in the exercise of those powers, stop any person or vehicle and make any search he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying weapons or articles of that kind.

(6) This section applies (with the necessary modifications) to ships, aircraft and hovercraft as it applies to vehicles.

(7) A person who fails to stop or (as the case may be) to stop the vehicle when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or both.

(8) Any authorisation under this section shall be in writing signed by the officer giving it and shall specify the locality in which and the period during which the powers conferred by this section are exercisable and a direction under subsection (3) above shall also be given in writing or, where that is not practicable, recorded in writing as soon as it is practicable to do so.

(9) Where a vehicle is stopped by a constable under this section, the driver shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that the vehicle was stopped under the powers conferred by this section if he applies for such a statement not later than the end of the period of twelve months from the day on which the vehicle was stopped and similarly as respects a pedestrian who is stopped and searched under this section.

(10) In this section—
dangerous instruments" means instruments which have a blade or are sharply pointed;
offensive weapon" has the meaning given by section 1(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and


vehicle" includes a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

(11) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to and not in derogation of, any power otherwise conferred.'.— [Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, at end insert—
'( ) Subsection (1) above shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid an order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, specifying the conditions to be satisfied for the powers conferred under this section to be exercised, including:

(a) what may reasonably constitute "a locality";
(b) what would constitute a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place.'.

Mr. Maclean: The question of police powers of stop and search has always been a matter of understandable sensitivity. Present police powers to stop and search can be exercised only when a constable has a reasonable suspicion that a person is carrying an offensive weapon or other prohibited article. We continue to believe that that power is the right one for day-to-day circumstances, but are persuaded that the need to meet the test of reasonable suspicion seriously inhibits effective preventive action by the police when they believe that violence is likely to break out.
In Committee, an amendment was tabled that would have given the police powers to stop and search without reasonable suspicion after a violent incident. That was a valiant attempt to introduce a new power, but the amendment struck the wrong balance. It raised familiar concerns about police powers to stop and search, without providing the benefit of enabling the police to take preventive action.
6.30 pm
I undertook to consult the police further about how we could most effectively meet their concerns and the clause is a result of those consultations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are grateful to the police for their comments. We also attempted to keep Opposition Members informed as our thinking developed. I am well aware of their concerns and will deal with them in a moment, but I can say that we do not consider that there is a great deal between us on the matter.
Amendment (a) deals with what constitutes "a locality" and
a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place"—
[Interruption.]—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is clear that there is much private conversation in the Chamber. It would be a courtesy to the Minister and to those of us who wish to listen to him if people could be quiet.

Mr. Maclean: Our new power could deal with similar incidents outside this House.
In practice, "locality" and "reasonable belief' will be well understood, but they cannot sensibly be spelt out in more detail in the Bill or in secondary legislation because their precise meaning will depend on the circumstances.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary are right to look urgently for ways in which to prevent the appalling assaults on police officers that we have witnessed. However, history and experience show that if men and women in uniform are given powers to deal arbitrarily with their fellow men and women, in all too short a time some will begin to abuse those powers. A Government of a party that lays such stress on personal freedom and believes in protecting the citizen from an oppressive state should not introduce such a measure.

Mr. Maclean: I am disappointed that that is my hon. Friend's view. I can assure him that the power cannot be used arbitrarily or abused because it will be highly circumscribed. It can be used only for a maximum of 24 hours, will have to be authorised by a very senior police officer and will be limited to a defined geographical area. There will be detailed monitoring of the power to ensure that there is no abuse of the type to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. David Trimble: I am sympathetic to the principle underlying the new clause, but one aspect concerns me. How will a citizen in one of the localities in respect of which direction has been made, where the new powers are operating, know that the new power exists? The reasonable man might be prepared to co-operate with the police—I am sure that most would do so if they were stopped—but if someone were in a hurry, for example, and said no when the policeman tried to stop him, he would have committed an offence although he might not have known that the power existed in the locality at the time. How is the citizen to know that the additional powers are in force in a locality?

Mr. Maclean: I am afraid that we must fall back on ignorantia juris neminen excusat. Some citizens may not realise that many offences exist and that they are committing an offence by what they may think is perfectly legitimate conduct. In all seriousness, I can see no mechanism for declaring that a locality is a certain zone. I will happily consider police proposals aimed at drawing to the attention of people in an area the fact that the powers exist there. I will also happily consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions if he writes to me.

Mr. Trimble: It is not enough to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, because, in the situations that the police will be dealing with, some people may be relying on their knowledge of the law—a knowledge that the police have the power only to stop a person if there are reasonable grounds and that they do not have the automatic right to stop people. If someone is relying on their knowledge of the law in general and is doing something that is reasonable, is it right to expose them to committing an offence when they do not know that the law has been changed in the locality for a short time?

Mr. Maclean: If they are relying on their knowledge of the law, that knowledge will be defective when the clause comes into effect because the law will permit the police, in defined localities and if authorised by a senior police officer, to conduct stop-and-search operations for a limited time.
When the power is introduced, the Home Office will take steps to try to draw it to the attention of the public. I suspect that the media will wish to draw attention to the


fact that the new powers exist. However, I cannot guarantee that everyone outside a night club or a pub will suddenly realise that the new law applies to them. I cannot even guarantee that for any existing law.
I was telling the House why I did not think that the inclusion of amendment (a) was necessary, although it is well intentioned and sensible. The precise size of the locality will vary according to the circumstances. For example, if the police are concerned about violence outside a pub or a club, the locality specified might be a few streets only. If the police are concerned about the possibility of violence before and after a football match, the locality might be wider.
The concept of "reasonableness" occurs frequently in statute and the courts are well used to interpreting it. We are concerned with a belief, based on sound professional judgment. If a judgment were shown to be arbitrary or irrational, there would be grounds for considering it to be unlawful. Again, that would be a matter for the courts to consider, if a decision were challenged. It would not be right to try to define the concept of "reasonableness" further in legislation.
We accept that fuller elaboration of some operational matters, such as the nature of record-keeping arrangements and how long authorisations should last, will be necessary. Those were the substance of some other Opposition amendments, which were not called. The code of practice on statutory powers of stop and search, issued under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, is the right place for such elaboration and I can assure the House and the Opposition that we shall want to make the necessary amendments.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: The hon. Gentleman suggested that if an irrational decision were taken it could be challenged in court. Can he elaborate? I find it difficult to see how that could be done with a power that lasts for a maximum of 24 hours. By what method could something be put right after the event? It seems that it would be impossible to deal with it through the courts.

Mr. Maclean: Exactly the same method could be used as exists at present. If anyone believes that a servant of the state or the police has acted unlawfully, irrationally or in abuse of his or her powers, the action can be challenged in court.
The hon. Gentleman is questioning whether a group of citizens, who thought that implementation of the power outside a pub, for example, was unnecessary, could have it suspended. I accept that that would require very quick court action. I envisage that, through the power of judicial review, if the police or any police force behaved irrationally a court would judge against them. I care to bet that no other police forces or superintendents would then authorise the power in similar circumstances to those in which the courts had ruled that it was irrational.
On the important question of community relations in respect of the new powers, we understand the anxiety that they might be used to the disadvantage of members of ethnic minority communities. Before tabling the amendment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained our intention to the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. The commission has welcomed the new powers, which it recognises will help prevent racially

motivated violence as well as other kinds of violent incidents. It understandably draws attention to the need for effective monitoring to ensure that the powers are not used in a racially discriminatory way, and I can confirm that it is our intention that such monitoring take place.
The police themselves want close monitoring of the use of the powers. They are well aware that effective policing of inner city areas depends on the trust of the communities who live there, and they are as determined as the Government that such trust should not be damaged by heavy-handed or improper use of these powers. It is, therefore, critical that their use is properly monitored to ensure that this does not happen, and I hope that Opposition Members will accept our good faith in that matter as well, as it was part of the substance of their amendments.
Police forces have been required since last April to collect statistics on the ethnic origin of people who are stopped and searched. The figures are to be published as part of each force's package of performance indicators. We intend that separate figures for stops and searches under the new power will also be published in this way.
I commend the new clause to the House and I invite the House to accept it. I hope that, in view of the assurances that I have given, the Opposition will feel that their amendment (a) is not necessary on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am glad to see that a Labour amendment in Committee has been effective in getting the Government to recognise the need for action against violence on our streets and in a variety of other situations.
I also welcome the positive response of the Minister of State to our offer to seek an acceptable formula for a search power and the exchanges that we have had on this issue. I commend it because it is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House have made a serious attempt to find a formula that will balance the requirement to provide the power with the safeguards that will reassure those who are concerned about the misuse of the power—a concern already expressed by Back-Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber.
What we need is a power that allows the police to take the initiative and to search people in appropriate circumstances, but which avoids the dangers of the old "sus" laws which did enormous damage to trust and confidence between the police and many local communities.
Having said that, it is only fair to point out that there was no attempt to deal with this issue in the original Bill, and it is one of a series of pieces of evidence that prove beyond all doubt that the present Home Secretary brought forward this ragbag of a Bill without proper care and thought and without addressing the real issues that are so important to individuals, families and communities throughout the country as well as to the police who are at the sharp end of so many serious problems.
I remind the House that the Bill as drafted contained nothing to deal with racial violence, which we have just dealt with, nothing to deal with drugs and drug-related crime, nothing to deal with violence on our streets and nothing to deal with possession of guns or trading in weapons. When the Bill emerges with something to deal with some of these issues, the Labour Members on the Standing Committee, to whose work I pay tribute, will have good reason to feel proud of their work there.


The new clause moved by the Minister does the job of providing the power when it is needed. We would all agree, for instance, that when it is known that two gangs are heading for a pre-planned venue for a fight it is desirable for the police to have the power to intervene and to search those in the area of such events and to prevent violence from taking place. It is the general theme of Labour policy that more needs to be done to prevent crime rather than just depending on punishment which can be delivered only after the event when violence has already created victims.
Our new clause in Committee achieved the balance between providing the power and the necessary safeguards in regard to some situations—although only some—because it required the trigger of an objective fact, an event of violence, for the power of search to be used. We said then that we would be willing to consider a preventive power if a clause could be drafted that would include an equally careful formula, balancing power and responsibility.
I believe that the amendments that we have tabled are helpful to the work of the police and helpful in achieving such a balance. They seek to provide in legislation clarity for the superintendent or other senior officer who has to decide to permit the exercise of the power contained in the clause.
The Minister has undertaken to address these issues within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 rules and to bring formulations before the House, but let me explain the importance of the issues that we addressed in the amendment that has been selected and also in the other amendments, with which there were technical difficulties —not surprisingly, I may say, given the half hour we had in which to meet the deadline for submitting amendments on Friday.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said that we needed to be sure that there was no way in which this power could be arbitrarily used, and he was absolutely right. It is also right that the House should ensure, in the drafting, that that is the case, and that both the House and another place have a chance to scrutinise any limitations on the exercise of the power, so as to be satisfied that such a requirement is met.
The danger with the power of stop and search is that it can be abused. It can be used in a way that is not intended by Parliament. We need a safeguard against such abuse. We all know, from the operation of the "sus" laws and the use of other powers of search, that very often, for instance, young black males will be stopped to a disproportionate extent and that confidence between police and the local community can be undermined or even fail as a result.
6.45 pm
We have seen in recent times the throwing of the "ring of steel" round the City of London. We all recognise its importance in dealing with the serious problem of terrorism and in the avoidance of such incidents if possible. But I venture to suggest that the Metropolitan police, because of their experience in recent years, would have exercised the power a little differently than the City of London police, simply because the experience of the two forces is quite different. The subject of frequent comment has been the surprisingly large number of black drivers who are stopped when it is not generally thought that there is an excessive number of black members of the IRA, yet

the IRA is the clear objective of the ring of steel round the City. It is a serious point, and it is recognised by the police as being serious.
It is to ensure that there is no misuse of a power that we all consider desirable for the appropriate circumstances that it is important for the amendments, which the Minister has recognised as being sensible and helpful, to be accepted and properly enshrined in the law.
The Minister said that there should be rigorous ethnic monitoring. The letter in which, on behalf of the three police associations, the chief constable of Hampshire sets out the nature of the clause that they wish to see, says:
This power would be subject to rigorous ethnic monitoring and would be an effective measure with which to combat racial violence against the ethnic minority communities.
It is an aspiration which we all share, but the requirement for monitoring is not in the new clause as it stands.
As a result of talking to the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, I have received the view from him and from that organisation that our suggested amendments are helpful. If the Minister is to accept what we intend in the amendments, and if those intentions are to be in the requirements under which police must exercise this power, we are very close, as the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, to an agreement across the House on both the intention in regard to the new power and the limitations that should be placed on it.
The four amendments that we tabled would not create problems for the police in exercising the powers that they seek. I have spoken to a number of police representatives in the past few days, and the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers has confirmed that he cannot see that our proposal would be restrictive: it allows the power in the Government's new clause and does not impose constraints that would make it unworkable. It would simply put into effect the intention of the police in seeking this power, without allowing them to go beyond the requirements that they seek.
Many police representatives said originally that they would be happy with a six-hour period rather than a 24-hour period. Senior officers have made that comment to me. We have not sought in our amendments to restrict that period, because we think that it is important that there should be flexibility, but that the minimum period possible should be used.
A senior police officer said to me, as recently as yesterday, that the great danger is that the maximum becomes the norm—that one says, "We can give 24 hours; let us give as many hours as possible." That is why we feel that there should be a balancing constraint; that the superintendent or senior officer should act under a constraint of the maximum number of hours consistent with effective use of the power.
A representative of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales said to me that it would welcome the clarification that would be provided to its members in exercising that power. It would be clear what Parliament intended. It would be clear that there were constraints on them in exercising those powers.
I refer in passing, as the Minister referred to them positively, to the amendments that were not selected for debate. Amendment (d) requires a record to be kept, in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, of the full circumstances of every occasion on which the powers in the new clause are exercised and requires a regular review of those records by Her Majesty's inspectorate of


constabulary. That would require the co-monitoring by the Commission for Racial Equality and the inspectorate, which is the aspiration and would meet one of the major concerns about the operation of the new clause.
Amendment (c) proposes that the senior officer who allows the exercise of the powers would have oversight of the use of the power and would be responsible for ensuring that a post-operational report and review be submitted to the chief constable or, in the case of the Metropolitan police, the Commissioner, and to the police authority. I think that that is accepted by the Minister as the right way to proceed, because it reminds the person exercising the power that the decision is to be reviewed. Superintendents have said to me that they would have to record their thought processes in reaching the decision and that would be helpful in ensuring that it was done in the way that Parliament intends.
Amendment (b) refers to the use of the power for the minimum number of hours consistent with the effective use of the power. I am sure that that is the right balance to achieve.
Finally, amendment (a) seeks a definition from the Government of what may reasonably constitute a locality and of what would constitute a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place. The advice that has been given to us is consistent with what the Minister said—that the courts would decide those matters if they were not decided by Parliament. I ask the House: is it reasonable or right to ask a senior police officer to guess what the courts would describe as being responsible if he exercises the power? I suggest that it is not.
It is the responsibility of Parliament to define a locality, not in a limiting way that says—as the Minister seems to suggest—that it can only be 200 yd in one direction and 300 yd in another, but by stating the considerations that a senior officer should take into account in deciding that the circumstances are right for the power to be exercised. It is only right for Parliament to give guidance on that. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment (a), because that will enshrine the principle that that definition—that expression of intent by Parliament—should be in the legislation.
I welcome the fact that the Minister said that he would take the gist of our four amendments into the guidance that will be provided in the PACE requirements and will be subject to consideration by Parliament. I believe that he has gone a long way towards meeting our concerns in his responses in correspondence and in the debate. We believe, however, that it would be best for the principle that is enshrined in amendment (a) to be in the Bill. We would therefore seek to divide the House if the Minister is unable to accept that amendment.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I declare an interest, as I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) gave the impression that new clause 124 was Labour-inspired. It was nothing of the kind. It was the result of an all-party initiative, which started out asking for 28 days; it was reduced to seven days; eventually, the Labour party said that it would consider six hours and now we have increased it to 24 hours. That is an example of an effective all-party parliamentary initiative to break the deadlock that has existed for the past decade, in which the

police have found it difficult to do their job properly because of the severe restrictions that exist on the stop-and-search powers.
I therefore congratulate the Minister for State, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), on the Government's decision to provide those new proactive powers to search for offensive weapons in carefully defined circumstances, and I must say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that I am glad to know that the new clause has the support of his colleagues and that he feels that we can now make progress on what has, until now, been a very difficult issue.
The decision to introduce the new clause has been warmly welcomed by the Police Federation and by the other police staff associations. It is the result of a discussion that has taken place, not only with my hon. Friend the Minister a few days before the easter recess, but with successive Home Secretaries, to my certain knowledge, for the past five years, ever since I have been parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on listening to the advice of the police staff associations and finding a way to enable a senior police officer to authorise the use of powers by a uniformed constable to stop and search persons and vehicles for a period not exceeding 24 hours or, in circumstances where an offence has been, or is reasonably suspected to have been, committed, for a further two hours.
Since 1984, police stop-and-search powers have been prescribed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and they are confined to very narrow and specific circumstances. At present, a police officer must have grounds for suspecting that a person is carrying an offensive weapon before a search can take place in the street and the power to search is limited by the codes of practice which are part of the 1984 Act. If, for example, an officer wishes to search beyond a suspect's outer clothing, that search must take place in a police station.
The problem that confronts the police today, a decade after the enactment of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, is that there is at present no power to search groups of people, even when the police have grounds to believe that an offensive weapon—a knife, for example—may be carried by some members of the group or that a violent incident is likely or has just taken place. Modern policemen and women throughout the country have to face that situation every day of the week. They need the powers to deal with that situation, especially in relation to knives, which are the bane of the life of every police officer in every part of the country. At present, there is no power to detain a group for searching after such an incident has occurred. Any search in such a situation must be based on suspicion that each individual is carrying a weapon, and that is quite impractical.
In practice, the absence of those powers has caused great difficulties for the police. For that reason, the Police Federation and the other staff associations have repeatedly mentioned the matter to successive Home Secretaries during the past five years and previously. The police need to be able to act to prevent violence. That is what the new clause is all about. They need adequate powers to investigate following an incident and to recover weapons —for example, the weapon or weapons that may have been used in a specific incident.
The new clause enables the police to deal with incidents involving groups of people when trouble is likely to occur


or has occurred. An example of that would be the aftermath of a stabbing incident inside or outside a pub. There is widespread concern in the House, and outside, about racially motivated attacks and the activities of racist gangs.
The new powers would enable the police to take action before trouble occurred or to search suspected perpetrators before an incident occurred. Surely it is ridiculous that although the police may have received prior information that trouble is expected at a football match, for example, they lack the power to search fans near the ground although stewards inside the ground can do so.
Some people outside the House may mistakenly take the view that these new powers represent a return to the "sus" law. If they think that, I can reassure them—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth who referred to the "sus" law—that that is not so. I think that it is important for the House to recognise, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, that the old "sus" law had absolutely nothing whatever to do with stop and search. It was a power given to the police to arrest persons who were suspected of loitering in a public place in order to commit a crime.

7 pm

Mr. Michael: I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we need a lecture about the definition of the "sus" law; we recognise the difference between the powers. But the communities that will be affected and which have an important relationship with the police should understand it precisely. That was the whole point of the intervention by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth); it is a concern which is shared across the House.

Mr. Shersby: I agree with the hon. Gentleman: it is vital that people should understand the powers, and that was the reason for my remarks. It is important to remember that loitering in those circumstances was, in itself, an arrestable offence. Those who will rightly be concerned about these matters will be reassured to know that the new clause has been carefully and narrowly drafted. It permits only the searching of people for weapons, and then only in the specific circumstances to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred.
As we have heard, a search has to be authorised by a senior officer. It is subject to a time limit and has to occur in a specific place. I welcome the assurances that my hon. Friend has given that the operation of the time limit and the place where the powers are to be exercised will be dealt with in the codes of practice.
I also believe that there is nothing in the proposed new powers to alarm the ethnic minority communities. Earlier this evening, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to concern in the ethnic communities. No one should attempt to alarm these communities by giving them the impression that police will use the powers to discriminate against them. On the contrary, the police have been strongly criticised for failing to act when racist gangs have caused trouble in multiracial neighbourhoods. In fact, the new powers will enable the police to act against the troublemakers and protect innocent members of minority groups.
I hope that in the consultation process my hon. Friend will ensure that the local police and community liaison groups are fully aware of the new law and the way in which it will operate. These groups have the very considerable

ability to communicate with local councillors and others who work with the police to make sure that people are aware of the way in which the law is supposed to operate.
For those reasons, I strongly support and warmly welcome the new clause. It demonstrates once again that both the Home Office and Ministers are prepared to listen to the expert advice that they receive from the police staff associations. I am particularly pleased that the new clause has come about as a result of considerable discussions between hon. Members on both sides of the House, both in and outside the Standing Committee.

Mr. Maclennan: The power to stop and search has proved extremely controversial and sensitive. I should have preferred the Government to incorporate their proposals in this area much earlier in the proceedings and to bring something forward in the Bill when it was published.
It does not seem to me to be a satisfactory way to legislate to produce a significant amendment to the Bill at a relatively late stage without much open consultation and without giving hon. Members on both sides of the House who well remember the consequences of the old law the opportunity to consult fully about precisely what the Government have in mind. I think it fair to say that it has been a rather hurried process: I share the views of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who said that it may be taken ill.
Having looked at the new clause as carefully as I could and having consulted, in the very short time available, as widely as I could, I think that it holds out the prospect of making a power available to the police which could be of value in preventing violent action. I strongly favour prevention and I know that the police also favour that. They are also concerned to ensure that the power should be used only when it is truly required.
I think that the most important matters that the Minister referred to are not included in the Bill, but are those that will be included in the revision of the codes of practice flowing from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We will certainly want to look at them.
The powers are plainly intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the possibility of their being invoked in the event of a perceived threat of violence at a football match. I hope that it is not the intention to use these powers at just any football match. Of course violence often occurs, to a greater or lesser extent, in close proximity to football matches; but there would have to be a particular reason associated with a particular match and locality before it would be appropriate to invoke these powers.
Similarly, the powers should not be invoked on just any Saturday night outside any pub in a rough area of town. I hope that they will be invoked only in respect of a particular perceived threat. I hope that the rules that the Minister will be bringing forward in the code of practice will make that clear.
I do not believe that amendment (a) is practical. I do not think that it is possible to spell out in a statutory instrument precisely the sorts of circumstances in which the powers might be used. It is clear that some flexibility and discretion must lie with the senior police officers who wish to invoke the powers.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: Certainly, in a moment.
A width of discretion is necessary if the powers are to be useful.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had made clear the processes that have to be gone through and the considerations that have to be taken into account. There should not be an over-restrictive definition. We clearly seek flexibility and that is why the amendment is drafted as it is.

Mr. Maclennan: I think that it would be extremely difficult for the House to define what would
constitute a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place".
They are the words that the hon. Gentleman has used in his amendment (a). Whether or not a belief is reasonable is an objective test, and it must be for the police officer to decide whether that test is discharged properly. I cannot see how crystal ball gazing by Parliaments and legislatures about the sorts of circumstances in which it might be reasonable to use the powers will assist. The hon. Gentleman no doubt wished to come in on the act in some way at this stage. I quite understand that; it is perfectly normal for Oppositions to take that view.
We must regard this important new power as exceptional. I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Uxbridge said about the reassurance that should be given to members of ethnic minority communities who may fear that the power will be used against them. It should be designed to protect those communities against the abuses, harassment and violence that have given rise to such concern.
For those reasons, I offer my support to the Government in bringing forward the new clause.

Mr. Greville Janner: The new clause has much good in it, as we all share the same concerns. What worries us is the fact that the Minister is prepared to put only into guidance what should be contained in the Bill. The law has little faith in guidance, because breach of guidance gives no one any rights, whereas breach of a statute or regulations made under a statute is an offence. Breach of a code may be taken into account in any proceedings—civil or criminal—to which it is relevant.
My constituents are immensely worried about crime in general and violent crime in particular. Last week, I attended a meeting in Leicester of people in a mixed race neighbourhood who were worried about both staying home or going out at night. I discussed with police officers what could be done about the prodigious and awful growth of crime in my constituency. It was not suggested that there was a difficulty with the right to search. Rather, the difficulty was the growth of crime, the decrease in policing and the weakness of the law in dealing with racial harassment and racial crime, none of which is dealt with in the Bill.
Nor does the Bill deal with the anxieties of the Muslim community, which is not regarded as an ethnic minority and does not have the same legal protection as the Sikh or Jewish communities. Nor does the Bill answer the recommendations made by Eldred Tabachnik, leading Queen's Counsel and leading member of the Jewish community, in a report that he submitted to the Home Secretary and which the Home Secretary undertook to take into account.
Furthermore, the Bill shows no acceptance of the recommendations of the Home Office Select Committee, chaired by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). As Chairman of another Select Committee, I deeply deplore the fact that the Government take no notice of Select Committee reports. One might understand the Government taking no notice if the Select Committee is chaired by an Opposition Member, but one does not understand it when the Committee is chaired by such a staunch Government supporter who has never been accused of being on the far left of any party, least of all his own.
The Government have shown no concern for the anxieties of the black, Asian, Muslim or Jewish communities. Even more important in parliamentary terms, they have shown no concern for what they have been told in the unanimous report of the Select Committee.
We accept the right to search, although I wish that it had been put in a better form. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) made some important points. He knows what this matter is about. He said that the new clause would not alarm the ethnic communities and, to an extent, he is right. But it is not a conscious alarm; it is built in because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that the police do not understand them and that too many members of the police do not care about them. I believe that they are often wrong, but they do not have the security which we want them to have. They are worried about the return of the "sus" laws. The Government and the hon. Member for Uxbridge should understand that, as many police officers do.
7.15 pm
The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that the right to search must be given before violence takes place. He is right, but he should know what the fascists are up to. They do not just settle down in places like Tower Hamlets or inhabit the terraces at football matches. They arrange meetings—often with neo-Nazis from other countries—that move from place to place, and the police do not know in advance where those meetings will be.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the police are given permission to search only for weapons. But when one searches for weapons, other things may turn up. Nobody will believe that the police are looking only for weapons. Although the police should have powers, they should be ringed properly and carefully, as the Opposition amendment suggests.
Will the Minister take another look at the matter? If he accepts that those rights should be approved by the police and embedded in the police's reasoning so that a senior police officer's decision to search is reasonable, why should not a reasonable Government include them in the Bill? I hope that, on reconsideration, that is what the Minister will do.

Mr. Gerrard: I shall be brief because we are pressed for time and I do not wish to repeat some of the arguments that have already been made.
Clearly, the Commission for Racial Equality has accepted that there are some good points about the new clause, but it has also emphasised the need for monitoring. Many powers, including stop and search, could be extended to have an effect on crime. But one must think carefully about whether those powers should go ahead because of their impact on civil liberties. While the


Minister has mentioned the welcome from some people, organisations that deal with civil liberties have expressed concern about the new clause.
There are several areas of concern. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised the issue of temporary powers and how people will know whether a power is in force in a particular area. I see the potential for problems when a power is applied temporarily in a small area. A person who is stopped will not know whether the policeman has the right to stop and search him, as it will depend whether the power is in force.
I am concerned about powers that allow the anticipation of an event. If a violent incident has occurred, that fact can be clearly established. But anticipation of an event that might happen and powers taken as a result are a different matter, as they will depend on subjective judgments. A few years ago in my constituency, a funeral took place of an Asian man who had been killed in an arson attack on his house. It happened to be at almost the same time as riots in Brixton and other parts of London. Large numbers of people were expected to turn up for the funeral. As a result of the police anticipating trouble—in the event, there was none—shops the length of the main road were boarded up. The police had stirred up disquiet as a result of anticipating trouble. I see exactly the same thing happening under this power when trouble is anticipated.
The Opposition amendments would achieve monitoring and the Minister has said that he wants to achieve that. It is not just a matter of monitoring on an ethnic basis, although that is important, but of how often the power will be used. We have been told that it is intended for emergency use only. I have a suspicion that, once a power exists and has been used, it will quickly stop being something exceptional that is used only in emergencies.
What will happen if the monitoring shows that there is an imbalance in the use of the stop-and-search powers, and that they are being used disproportionately, particularly against young black males? We know that the "sus" laws were used in that way, although they involved a different power. Many young black males feel that they are stopped in their cars much more often than anyone else. We know that, around the City of London, the powers are being used disproportionately against young blacks.
I have serious doubts about the wisdom of the power. If it is misused, it will cause serious damage to community relations. I suspect that, even if it is not misused, but is used precisely as drafted, it will still cause trouble and damage community relations. The new clause introduces an extremely dangerous power—one which we may live to regret introducing.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I declare an interest as a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned, the police are pleased with the new clause, and the fact that stop-and-search powers are to be granted. Some 16 police officers have been either stabbed or shot in the past 10 years, besides the many civilians who have been victims of guns and knives. There is clearly a rising problem, with which the police increasingly have to deal, not only at football matches and public events, but when there are violent incidents in public houses. The police want to enter, but they do not know who may be holding a gun or knife. They want to be able to make people turn out their pockets. That sort of power is necessary.
I am pleased that the Government have recognised the nature of the increasing problem of guns and knives. They seem to have realised it only since the Committee stage of the Bill. As late as Christmas, the Home Office was telling the police that it would not guarantee further extensions of stop-and-search powers. It is only as the result of pressure, from not only Conservative Back Benchers but Opposition Members, that the Government are now prepared to accept changes. Conservative Members withdrew their amendments, but Opposition Members tabled amendments in Committee and, in those circumstances, the Minister and the Home Office were forced to make the sort of change that we are now seeing.
I shall not embarrass the Minister by reading back to him all the comments that he made about my new clause 184, which sought to introduce stop-and-search powers.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Go on, embarrass him.

Mr. O'Brien: I am greatly tempted to do so, but I am conscious that we are pressed for time so I shall not give way to temptation.
I shall paraphrase the Minister of State, Home Office, who said that the phrase "reasonable belief' was deficient and that reasonable suspicion should provide the basis and criterion for any search. He said that that was a fundamental principle of PACE. He said that my new clause was too widely drawn as it allowed a six-hour period. Government new clause 124 uses the phrase "reasonably believes" and ignores the idea of reasonable suspicion being necessary. It is even more widely drawn than my new clause and grants a 24-hour period.
The Minister seems to have been involved in a political leapfrog from one side of the Labour party's position to the other. I am curious about how he made that intellectual jump. I am not sure whether he will wind up the debate, but if he does perhaps he will explain how he made his intellectual jump—he might have been forced to do so out of embarrassment. The Minister has given reassurances that the codes of practice will contain safeguards. Those safeguards will not only protect the public, which is important, but the police, which is also important. We must ensure that we maintain and improve good community-police relations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), at end insert—
'( ) Subsection (1) above shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid an order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, specifying the conditions to be satisfied for the powers conferred under this section to be exercised, including:

(a) what may reasonably constitute "a locality";
(b) what would constitute a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 304.

Division 193]
[7.25 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Hilary


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ashton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Austin-Walker, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Battle, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bayley, Hugh






Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Benton, Joe
Gunnell, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hain, Peter


Berry, Dr. Roger
Hall, Mike


Betts, Clive
Hanson, David


Blair, Tony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Blunkett, David
Henderson, Doug


Boateng, Paul
Hendron, Dr Joe.


Boyes, Roland
Heppell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hoey, Kate


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Burden, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Byers, Stephen
Hood, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clapham, Michael
Hume, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jamieson, David


Coffey, Ann
Janner, Greville


Connerty, Michael
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jowell, Tessa


Corston, Ms Jean
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cousins, Jim
Keen, Alan


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dafis, Cynog
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Darling, Alistair
Lewis, Terry


Davidson, Ian
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie


Denham, John
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum


Donohoe, Brian H.
McFall, John


Dowd, Jim
McGrady, Eddie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mackinlay, Andrew


Enright, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Etherington, Bill
McMaster, Gordon


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McWilliam, John


Fatchett, Derek
Madden, Max


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mallon, Seamus


Fisher, Mark
Mendelson, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fraser, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fyfe, Maria
Martlew, Eric


Galbraith, Sam
Maxton, John


Galloway, George
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Mike
Meale, Alan


Garrett, John
Michael, Alun


George, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Milburn, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gordon, Mildred
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gould, Bryan
Morgan, Rhodri


Graham, Thomas
Morley, Elliot





Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Short, Clare


Mowlam, Marjorie
Skinner, Dennis


Mudie, George
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Spearing, Nigel


O'Hara, Edward
Speller, John


Olner, William
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Parry, Robert
Stevenson, George


Patchett, Terry
Stott, Roger


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Straw, Jack


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Vaz, Keith


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Prescott, John

Walley, Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Andrew


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Reid, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Winnick, David


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wise, Audrey


Rooker, Jeff
Worthington, Tony


Rooney, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ruddock, Joan



Salmond, Alex
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burns, Simon


Alton, David
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ancram, Michael
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Carttiss, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cash, William


Atkins, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Congdon, David


Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Beggs, Roy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Bendell, Vivian
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Eggar, Tim






Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lidington, David


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
MacKay, Andrew


Gardiner, Sir George
Maclean, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maclennan, Robert


Garnier, Edward
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Maginnis, Ken


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Malone, Gerald


Gorst, John
Mans, Keith


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Merchant, Piers


Hanley, Jeremy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hannam, Sir John
Mills, Iain


Hargreaves, Andrew
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Harris, David
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Harvey, Nick
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, Nick
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawksley, Warren
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Heald, Oliver
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hendry, Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Norris, Steve


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Horam, John
Ottaway, Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jenkin, Bemard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Kirkwood, Archy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian





Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Sims, Roger
Trend, Michael


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trimble, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trotter, Neville


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Soames, Nicholas
Tyler, Paul


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Viggers, Peter


Spink, Dr Robert
Walden, George


Spring, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sproat, Iain
Wallace, James


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waller, Gary


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Stephen, Michael
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Ray


Sweeney, Walter
Whittingdale, John


Sykes, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thomason, Roy
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Michael Brown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 125

OFFENCE OF RACIALLY INFLAMMATORY PUBLICATION ETC. TO BE ARRESTABLE

'. In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after the paragraph (h) inserted by section 137(4) of this Act, there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(i) an offence under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 (publishing, etc. material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred):".'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

LAW OF MURDER

'The presumption in criminal law that the offences of murder and manslaughter shall occur only if the party wounded or hurt dies of the wound or hurt within a year and a day shall be abolished.'.—[Mr. Milburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alan Milburn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause has a straightforward purpose—to bring the law on murder into the 20th century. At present, the offence is governed by Judge Cook's antiquated 16th-century definition:
When a man of sound memory unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature so as the party wounded dies of the wound or hurt within a year and a day after the same".
That outdated definition has cost a family in my constituency the justice to which they were entitled following the tragic death of their son, Michael Gibson.
Michael suffered an unprovoked assault in Darlington town centre in April 1992, a month before his 21st


birthday. As he walked along Darlington's High Row, he was savagely attacked by a passing stranger. He was hit only once, but it was enough. He remained comatose for the next 16 months, kept alive thanks only to the care and dedication of staff at Darlington memorial hospital.
Within a matter of hours, Michael's assailant, David Clark, had been arrested by local police. He was well known to them, having served recent sentences for burglary and actual bodily harm. Clark readily confessed that, after consuming 12 pints of lager, he had gone out looking for trouble that Friday evening. He found it in the shape of Michael Gibson.
But David Clark is a very lucky man. He is free today to roam the streets once again, thanks to an ancient law that takes no account of advances in medical technology.
The absurdities of the law as it stands mean quite simply that Michael Gibson took too long to die. According to a letter that I have received from Barbara Mills, the Director of Public Prosecutions:
in the event of Michael having died within a year and a day of the assault upon him, Mr. Clark would have been charged with an offence of manslaughter.
The Crown Prosecution Service even waited for 366 days before bringing Clark to court, but once the year and a day had passed, it was left with no alternative but to bring a charge of grievous bodily harm against David Clark. He received a two-year sentence. He was released from prison just nine weeks after Michael Gibson finally died, in August 1993.
It is little wonder that Michael's mother, Pat Gibson, has earned the support of people throughout the north-east of England for her campaign to scrap this antiquated rule. She has to live with the knowledge that, if her son had been attacked just 150 miles further north—in Scotland—her son's killer would face life imprisonment, because the rule simply does not apply there. Nor does it apply in any other European country apart from Cyprus. She said of her son's killer:
I thought the law and justice would take care of him. But the law has simply aided and abetted him in getting away with it.
Pat Gibson is right. The law protected the guilty, because it had been outstripped by medical science. Today, patients can be kept alive for many years, thanks to all the advances in life-saving and life-enhancing medical technology. There are now some 1,200 patients in England alone who are believed to be in a persistent vegetative state. No doubt many will be the victims of road traffic accidents, but a few will be the victims of assault.
I am aware of at least three other cases in which the 366-day rule has served to deny justice to the victims of crime and to their families. As the Minister conceded in Committee, the number of crime victims caught in this legal time warp is likely to increase as the frontiers of medicine are constantly pushed back.
He has, of course, expressed sympathy for the Gibson family, and that is very welcome. He even said in Committee that the 366-day rule was anachronistic. That is very welcome. What is less welcome is the fact that, for almost a year, he has ducked and dodged about making a final decision about the future of this outdated and unjust rule.
7.45 pm
I first wrote to the Home Secretary on 19 May last year, calling for a review of the 366-day rule. The Minister cannot claim this evening that he has not had enough time to assess the implications of change. He has had 11 months to conduct a review. Only now is he prepared to refer the issue to the Law Commission, but he still cannot say what sort of timetable or remit the Law Commission will have, or when it will report its conclusions to the House. That is simply not good enough.
The Minister said in Committee that the first clause that I tabled would have given rise to a new anachronism, because it did not cover manslaughter as well as murder. There can be no such excuses with new clause 15. It covers both, and has taken on board his concerns. It calls for the immediate abolition of a rule that is bringing the law into disrepute by failing properly to punish those who commit the most serious of offences on our statute book—murder.
Over recent months, we have all heard much from Ministers about getting tough on crime. The Minister himself has spoken eloquently about the need to return to common-sense principles in matters of crime and punishment. I can remind him that, just a month ago, he told the House:
Our constituents are sick and tired of lengthy legal games letting the guilty go free on technicalities."—(Official Report, 2 March 1994; Vol. 238, c. 1054.]
Tonight, Ministers have an opportunity to put those convictions into practice. Ministers can demonstrate that the commitment to justice and the right of victims come before retaining an ancient rule that has simply outlived its usefulness.
I urge all hon. Members this evening to support new clause 15.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The rule to which the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has referred is a rule which, when it was created, no doubt met the perception at that time of common sense. If somebody had recovered more than a year and a day after the trauma leading to their unconsciousness, it would have been regarded as a miracle of sanctifiable proportions.
But understandings have changed, and medical science, as the hon. Gentleman said, has moved on a good deal. One could not say that it was an everyday occurrence for somebody to recover more than a year and a day after becoming unconscious, but it is certainly relatively common for people to recover a measure of consciousness much more than a year after a traumatic incident.
During my years in legal practice, I have been involved as a barrister in a good many personal injury cases. I recall a number of cases in which children, particularly, who had the physical strength to remain alive while unconscious for a considerable time, have made—albeit part, but good part —recoveries from what appeared to be a persistent vegetative state. So science is very different from the understanding at the time that the rule was created.
That nobody can be prosecuted in 1994 for murder or manslaughter after a year and a day plainly makes an ass of the law. As every year passes, the position will seem ever more asinine, unless the Minister is prepared to concede that the time has now come for a change.
It is hardly a revolutionary change. I am given to understand that the law of Scotland does not involve a rule of this kind, and that it never has. I do not believe that life, at least in modern times, is held more cheaply in Scotland than it is in England and Wales. It is my view that what


applies in Scotland in this regard should apply in England. There is a need for some uniformity in the law of murder and manslaughter within the countries of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I hope that we may see some harmonisation of these criminal laws throughout the European Union in due course.
Many issues affecting the law of murder and mánslaughter have been and are being considered by the Law Commission. I believe that fundamental changes should take place which go somewhat beyond this proposal. It should not await that wider consideration before being introduced. Many practising lawyers, such as myself, who have appeared in a great number of homicide cases, believe that the distinction between murder and manslaughter is now no longer sensible, and that the mandatory life sentence is no longer a realistic way of dealing with the vast range of facts that may arise in a homicide case. I accept that those issues may require wider and longer debate and possibly specific legislation, but this is an issue which the Government have had more than enough time to consider. The time for change has now arrived.
I applaud the proposal made by the hon. Member for Darlington and hope that we shall at last hear a positive response from the Minister.

Mr. Maclean: Of course I believe that people who kill should not escape the full force of the law because of a technicality. That has been my view, is my view and always will be my view.
I said in Committee that I was personally inclined to the view that abolition would turn out to be the sensible reform of the year-and-a-day rule in due course, and that also is still my view. I am not known as a person much given to sympathy for those who commit crime and I worry that the rule has outlived its usefulness, but I believe that simple abolition would create a vacuum in the way in which we treat those who may be liable to further prosecution having already been convicted of a lesser offence, if the victim goes on to die, or who may not have been prosecuted in the first place. We are, after all, talking about the most serious charge known to law in the same breath as we contemplate a potentially unlimited liability to prosecution in the future.
If the matter were really as straightforward as the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) suggests, why did the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment not leap instantly to the conclusion that the rule should be abolished? Instead, they recommended its retention.
As I said in Committee, the Law Commission had separately arrived at a decision to review the rule—not, I must point out to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), as part of a long and wide-ranging review of all aspects of crime and punishment or murder, but as a separate, shorter, sharper review. Those of us who are familiar with the Law Commission's way of working will know that consultation is its key component, and that it would be foolish and wrong to expect the commission to forgo that element simply to beat a parliamentary deadline. In any event, it is not for me, the Government or the House to try to set timetables for the Law Commission.
I do not expect that the commission will produce its report in time for the Government to amend the Bill; still less would I presume to guarantee that the commission will come up with the same proposal as Opposition Members,

or follow my own views on the matter. I can say, however, that the commission has been made well aware of the strength of feeling in the House and of the Government's concern.
That is why I believe that the Law Commission will take forward this difficult but discreet and limited task with urgency. I believe that the House should therefore reject this premature new clause with every confidence that the matter will be quickly and thoroughly dealt with by those who are expert in it.

Mr. Michael: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) for the way in which he has pursued the issue for a considerable time. I made the case on behalf of the Opposition in Committee, and I do not need to add to the arguments which stand in the record of the sittings of the Standing Committee of 3 March.
I remind the Minister of his words in response to our debate in Committee:
The year and a day rule has outlived its usefulness, but we must tie up the loose ends.
With reference to those loose ends, he asked:
What happens if the rule is abolished for murder but the charge is later reduced for manslaughter?"—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee B. 3 March 1994; c. 1165]
We have put that right, because new clause 15 deals with manslaughter as well as murder.
The Minister does not wait for or listen to advice unless it suits him. There has been dangerously speedy decision-making on a range of issues—videos and stop-and-search are only two cases in point. The Minister is again refusing to fulfil a promise made to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington by the Prime Minister. At this point, the House should vote on the issue and resolve it once and for all.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 277.

Division No. 194]
[7.53 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tty NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Alton, David
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Armstrong, Hilary
Clapham, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bell, Stuart
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F.
Corston, Ms Jean


Benton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Berry, Roger
Cummings, John


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Blair, Tony
Dafis, Cynog


Boateng, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Boyes, Roland
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davidson, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Burden, Richard
Denham, John


Caborn, Richard
Dewar, Donald






Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
Lynne, Ms Liz


Donohoe, Brian H.
McAllion, John


Dowd, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McCartney, Ian


Eagle, Ms Angela
Macdonald, Calum


Enright, Derek
McFall, John


Etherington, Bill
McGrady, Eddie


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McKelvey, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McMaster, Gordon


Fisher, Mark
McNamara, Kevin


Flynn, Paul
McWilliam, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Madden, Max


Foulkes, George
Maginnis, Ken


Fraser, John
Mahon, Alice


Fyfe, Maria
Mallon, Seamus


Galbraith, Sam
Mendelson, Peter


Galloway, George
Marek, Dr John


Gapes, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Garrett, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


George, Bruce
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gerrard, Neil
Martlew, Eric


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Michael


Gordon, Mildred
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Grocott, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Gunnell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hain, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hall, Mike
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harvey, Nick
Morgan, Rhodri


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hendron, Dr Joe
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mudie, George


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Hara, Edward


Hoon, Geoffrey
Olner, William


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Parry, Robert


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Patchett, Terry


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Hume, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jowell, Tessa
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Khabra, Piara S.
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)





Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wallace, James


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Walley, Joan


Soley, Clive
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Spearing, Nigel
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watson, Mike


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Welsh, Andrew


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Wilson, Brian


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wright, Dr Tony


Trimble, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Turner, Dennis



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaz, Keith
Mr. John Hutton and


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Mr. Stephen Byers.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davis, David (Boothfery)


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Duncan, Alan


Aspinwall, Jack
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkins, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Elletson, Harold


Baldry, Tony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, Dudley


Body, Sir Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Booth, Hartley
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bowden, Andrew
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gallie, Phil


Brandreth, Gyles
Gardiner, Sir George


Brazier, Julian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bright, Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gillan, Cheryl


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Burns, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorst, John


Carrington, Matthew
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coe, Sebastian
Hanley, Jeremy


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Congdon, David
Hargreaves, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Haselhurst, Alan


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawkins, Nick


Couchman, James
Hawksley, Warren


Cran, James
Hayes, Jerry


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Heald, Oliver


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David






Hendry, Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Richards, Rod


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bemard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Soames, Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spink, Dr Robert


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spring, Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sproat, Iain


Legg, Barry
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Leigh, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Steen, Anthony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stephen, Michael


Lidington, David
Stewart, Allan


Lightbown, David
Streeter, Gary


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sweeney, Walter


Lord, Michael
Sykes, John


Luff, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maclean, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Major, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marland, Paul
Thurnham, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tracey, Richard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tredinnick, David


Mates, Michael
Trend, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Trotter, Neville


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Walden, George


Moate, Sir Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Monro, Sir Hector
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moss, Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whittingdale, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Willetts, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilshire, David


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark





Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Michael Brown.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 17

FIREARMS OFFENCES (PENALTIES)

'(1) The offences of possessing a firearm or shotgun or ammunition contrary to Section 1 (as amended by Section 2 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988) and Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1968, shall be punishable

(a) upon conviction on indictment by a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years;
(b) on summary conviction by six months imprisonment or a fine of £1,000 or both.

(2) The offence of trading in firearms without being registered as a firearms dealer contrary to Section 3(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 shall be punishable upon conviction on indictment by a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding ten years.

(3) The offence of selling a firearm to a person without a certificate, contrary to Section 3(2) of the Firearms Act 1968, shall be punishable as at subsection (2) above.

(4) The offence of possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition contrary to Section 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 shall be punishable as at subsection (2) above.

(5) Notwithstanding that a person shall otherwise be guilty of an offence contrary to Section 1 or Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1968, it shall be an offence for a person to possess a firearm (including shotguns and ammunition) without the appropriate certificate or permit authorising such possession, if that person has previously been the holder of a certificate or permit to possess such firearm within the previous six months, and is not a prohibited person under Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968, and a person guilty of an offence under this subsection is liable—

 (a) on conviction on indictment

(i) where the offfence is committed in an aggravatged form within the meaning of section 4(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine; or both
(ii) in any other case to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine; or both.

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine of £1,000 or both.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 57—Carrying of offensive weapons (penalties)—
'-In section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (Prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons in public places without lawful authority or reasonable excuse)—

(a) subsection (a) shall be omitted.
(b) the words after the word "exceeding" in subsection (b) shall be omitted and shall be substituted by the words "30 years".'.

New Clause 58—Dangerous weapons (penalties)—
'.-In section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (Penalties for offences in connection with dangerous weapons)—
(a) the words from "liable on" to "fine" shall be omitted and substituted by the words "conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 20 years".'.
New Clause 59 —Having article with blade or point (penalties)—
'.-In Part IX of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—

(a) In section 139 (Offence of having article with blade or point in public place) subsection (6), the words after the words "liable on" shall be omitted and substituted by the words "conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 30 years",


(b) In section 141 (Offensive weapons) subsection (1), the words after "liable on" shall be omitted and substituted by the words "conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 30 years".'.

Government amendment No. 349.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to propose new clause 17, which seeks to increase penalties for the possession of firearms—contrary to existing legislation—and to give greater flexibility to the courts in dealing with firearm issues. The new clause sets out a series of amendments to the current legislation and I hope that they will be commended to the House.
As with a number of other issues that Opposition Members have raised during the passage of the Bill, the new clause highlights the need for fast and firm action. In this case, it is to curb the increasing use of guns and other weapons on the streets of Britain. The new clause would increase the maximum penalty, thus giving wider discretion to the courts to act firmly in cases where it is required.
I want to make it clear that that does not make penalties more onerous at the lower end of the scale of offences. Understandably, people who possess weapons for legitimate purposes, such as for sport or in connection with their work, are concerned that an increase in offences can, perhaps through an oversight in reviewing a licence, lead them to face greater penalties. There is no need for that to occur because, obviously, we are not targeting circumstances of that sort and it remains open for the courts to leave penalties for such offences as they stand.
The purpose of tabling amendments in Committee was to highlight the problem of firearms. As with other matters, we are entitled to point out that it is only when Opposition Members demand action that changes in penalties are introduced. That happened with drugs and drug-related offences when the Government amended the clause dealing with the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967.
The Government have tabled an amendment, too, and I am pleased that they have responded in that way to our initiative. However, their amendment is narrower than our new clause. The urgent need for action on the issue is shown by the fact that since 1982 there has been an 83 per cent. increase in offences of wounding, which is the statistical category that includes possession of firearms and other offensive weapons. In view of the seriousness of offences of that nature, that is a frightening increase. Within that category, the more serious offences of wounding or endangering life have increased by 128 per cent.
There now seems to be some acceptance of the argument for taking action to prevent weapons from reaching the streets. Our new clause deals with that aspect too. As was demonstrated by some of the new clauses that we tabled in Committee, it is important to prevent weapons from reaching the streets. If they are not carried, if they do not become part of the normal dress of some people in some communities, they cannot be used. The best approach to the problem is to prevent the recurrence of the worrying incidents that have taken place recently by tackling the availability of weapons and the possibility of their being carried, and thus restoring some of the safety that has been lost to our streets.
It is important that Parliament understands and responds to the message now coming from police officers. People

will have taken note of the comments of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis after yet another worrying and frightening incident of violent assault on a police officer. Because the Commissioner referred to being driven by events, his remarks could have been taken to mean that it was inevitable that before long all police officers would be armed, and that we could change the tradition of policing in the community and policing by consent. However, it is important for Parliament to ensure that we are driven not by events but by decisions made in the House. We must be driven by the law and by the success of the law in curbing violence on our streets.
In conversations with representatives of the various police associations it becomes clear that all three of them view with distaste and alarm the possibility of armed police becoming standard on the streets of this country. That would bring about a change in the nature of the relationship between the police and the community that it is frightening to imagine. The House should not consider that idea lightly.
The remarks by the Commissioner and by other police officers who have had to deal with some of the results of the availability of weapons should be taken seriously, not as a description of the inevitable but as a warning of the path down which the country will go unless Ministers and all other hon. Members succeed in introducing measures to curb the availability of weapons on our streets.
Clearly that cannot be done by legislation alone. The way in which policing is carried out, and the way that we tackle the environment in which crime flourishes, are important too. As the Opposition have repeatedly said, we must be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That applies as much to violence and the possession of weapons as to any other element of crime that we need to tackle.
The amendment that the Government have tabled in response to new clause 17 suggests that they recognise the need to amend the law, but the amendment is narrower than the new clause, so I hope that on reflection the Minister will feel able to accept the wider provisions of our new clause, which I hope will have the support of the whole House. The important issues involved should have been dealt with when the Bill was first drafted, or on Second Reading, so that they could have been considered in greater detail in Committee. But that did not happen, so the Opposition have sought to remedy the omission. On those grounds, I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Maclean: I fully agree that the courts must have at their disposal suitable penalties for the unlawful possession of offensive weapons and for unlawful dealing in and purchase of firearms. But we must ensure that we retain a differential between such offences and offences involving actual harm. We have tabled amendment No. 349 to increase the maximum penalty for the unauthorised possession and distribution of prohibited weapons from five to 10 years' imprisonment, as proposed in subsection (4) of new clause 17.
8.15 pm
However, we believe that the new clause as a whole is not on the right lines. Penalties for the use of firearms in crime are already severe. Possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life or with intent to commit an indictable


offence, and using a firearm with intent to prevent arrest, already carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment —and quite right too.
With reference to new clauses 57, 58 and 59, trial on indictment only is reserved for offences considered too serious for magistrates courts. Existing maximum penalties for possession of offensive weapons are substantial, and in the Government's view they adequately reflect the seriousness of such offences.
I have pleasure in recommending Government amendment No. 349. Weapons prohibited by the Firearms Acts include machine guns, machine pistols, many kinds of self-loading and pump-action rifles and shotguns, and noxious substance weapons, such as CS gas sprays. Those are of especial concern to hon. Members, to the Government, to the police and to the public. The prohibited category also includes disguised firearms, as well as mortars, rocket launchers and other heavy military weaponry.
I see no justification for the possession of such machine guns and machine pistols; there is no justifiable excuse for their simple possession. That is why we believe that the present penalties for possession of such items—from two to five years' imprisonment—should be increased to a maximum of 10 years. Of course, if anyone endeavours to use such weapons in any way, or has intent to commit a crime, the life imprisonment maximum will apply, and rightly so.
At present the maximum penalty on summary conviction for unauthorised possession or distribution of a prohibited weapon is three or six months, depending on the weapon. Amendment No. 349 would ensure a common maximum of six months. I commend it to the House, and I submit that the other amendments are not necessary.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Again I remind the House of my position as adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. I welcome the Government's conversion to supporting the changes, but their amendment does not go far enough. We need to send a clear message not only to those who use guns in the commission of offences but to those who possess them and may well subsequently commit offences, that it is unacceptable to possess such weapons unlawfully.
Over recent years there have been all too many cases of the use of firearms in serious criminal offences. Not only have police officers been shot—16 officers have been shot or stabbed in the past 10 years—but on the television and in our newspapers we have seen and read about many other tragic cases.

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but does he accept that in cases where weapons have been used against the police the maximum penalty is life imprisonment? I do not know how to make that maximum any greater.

Mr. O'Brien: I entirely accept that. Indeed, if the Minister had been listening carefully, I suggested that there was a distinction between possession and use. I readily accept that, and I certainly do not quarrel with it.
On this occasion, there needs to be a clear message from the Government that the unlawful possession of weapons is not acceptable. No one is seeking to restrict the shooting lobby or the hunting lobby in the measure. The aim of it is to deal with those who possess weapons for criminal purposes; at that stage, they may not be using them. One

of the concerns expressed to me in the past hour is that officers often find that they have arrested a person who possesses a gun, whom they believe was in the process of committing an offence. That person will argue and seek to suggest that he was not intent on committing an offence and there will be various plea bargains with regard to the seriousness of the matter. Usually, the lesser offence will be accepted in those circumstances, so it results in a reduced sentence.
We need to ensure that where there is possession of weapons, and it is shown that a person does not have a lawful right or reason to have those weapons, that person is punished adequately. At present, it seems that the powers that the courts have to deal with the most serious cases of possession, not only armourers, for example—we had recent cases where automatic weapons were possessed by someone who was alleged to be an armourer renting guns to criminals, who then used those guns to commit offences —but criminals who think that they have a right to carry guns perhaps for the purposes of drug dealings. The courts should be able adequately to deal with such criminals.
At present, it seems that the Government are trying to be restrictive and to hedge about. They talk continuously about being tougher on crime. However, when the Labour party—as it does now—proposes stiffer penalties to deal with the unlawful possession of guns by criminals, the Government seem to back off from doing something about it. That is an entirely inadequate response and sends the entirely wrong message, especially to young people who may be considering getting involved in the drugs trade, that the possession of guns, if they are caught, will not merit the most severe penalties.
The Minister will be familiar with the catalogue of cases that I set out in the Standing Committee—I will not rehearse them again now—where the Police Federation in particular was concerned that circumstances had arisen where criminals were allowed to plead to lesser charges in order to receive lesser sentences. It seems that we are not dealing with the issue of deterrence, although it may be important to deter. We must ensure that the courts have adequate powers to deal with the most serious cases of possession.
The new clause is not targeted at the bottom range of possession offences—those who simply happen to be caught without their licence—but at the most serious cases of possession. The Government are not responding adequately or strongly enough to send a clear message to those people that they should not be found in possession of weapons.

Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to address new clause 17. Of course, I shall be paying particular attention to new clauses 57, 58 and 59 which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I shall also make observations about new clause 43, which I withdrew earlier this evening, because it also relates to weapons offences against individuals.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I find myself agreeing with what the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) said. For years, I have felt that deterrence was an important element in the whole criminal justice system. Whatever excuse people who carry a weapon may give, and whatever device they use in court to try to mitigate against any penalty, the plain truth is that it is the carrying that is the problem. The carrying of weapons leads to use. Unless one addresses the whole question of


carrying, whether it is a gun or a sharp weapon, inevitably in some circumstances the risk of the weapon being used is real, especially to the police. If we think ahead and recognise that if the police stop and search individuals who may be considered to be in the act of committing, or about to commit, a felony of some sort, if the individual is in possession of an offensive weapon, the risk of use is considerably increased simply because they have been stopped.
In London alone in 1992, there were 7,700 recorded acts of robbery and violence with sharp instruments. That is almost one act every hour of the night and day. It is interesting to note that 36 per cent. of all homicides in the United Kingdom in 1992 were caused by sharp instruments —that is, 226 out of a total of 622—and blunt instruments accounted for 8 per cent. or 51 out of 622. That is a 50 per cent. increase over 1983. We cannot ignore that continuing increase.
The age of drugs and guns has spawned an avalanche of crime. I am not simply saying that the problem is only in the United Kingdom—the plain fact is that it is a worldwide problem. However, the one area that we can help and deal with is in this country and that is why it is important for Parliament to address the situation here.
In 1939, there were 304,000 recorded criminal offences of all types. In 1965, the number had risen to more than 1 million—a trebling in 25 years. By 1992, it had risen to 5.5 million—a fivefold increase in 27 years. Will we continue to think that we can do little about the problem? I hope not. In 1974, there were 2,828 firearm offences; in 1992, there were 13,305. That is a 500 per cent. increase in 18 years. I suggest that 1993 and 1994 will continue to follow the trend of previous years. Is it America today and the United Kingdom tomorrow? As we know, violent crime is out of control in Florida and is dramatically affecting its £20 billion tourist industry. That is simply because of the relentless flow of killings, rapes and robberies.
I do not believe that we can stand here and say that we can do little about the matter. I happen to believe in deterrence. That is why I put a simple question to my hon. Friend the Minister during the previous speech that I made on this matter. I asked my hon. Friend about the Government's view on deterrence; he accepted that deterrence had a part to play. That is why the Government have increased the penalty from five years to 10 years, and I welcome that. However, that is only one example of movement.
It was devastating to learn from the recently leaked report which was commissioned by five London police divisions that they can no longer cope with gun crime and that a totally new strategy is required. I understand that there are an estimated 4 million illegal firearms in this country and goodness knows how many knives that are used to impose the will of all of those involved in crime, especially the drug barons in their £2.5 billion business. The only way to cope with those criminals, their fire power, and their wanton disregard for human life, is to have draconian penalties. The existing and potential explosion of drug and gun crimes, and the increased use of weapons, especially knives, are the evils of our modern society. If something is to be done we shall have to make it quite clear to those involved that they will be dealt with summarily by the courts.
8.30 pm
It takes some £9,000 million per annum to run the criminal justice system. The Metropolitan police alone costs £1.8 billion. I am convinced that my new clauses would help to stamp out violent crime and would produce considerable savings for the police and the court system —not to mention hospital treatment and the millions of man hours that are lost to the economy through the suffering of victims. The savings would be enormous—more than compensating, I believe, for the cost of imprisonment. This is why my new clauses, which my hon. Friend the Minister spent about 10 seconds addressing, are important.
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for his valiant efforts to come up with new ideas, but it is an inescapable fact that traditional policing methods are as out of date today as the Keystone Kops ever were. In this situation we must look comprehensively at how the problem of rising crime, particularly violent crime, should be addressed. I believe that in the absence of the real deterent—capital punishment—we must incarcerate people on such a scale as to deter.
Deterrence is the ability of the courts to inflict upon individuals an unacceptable period of incarceration. This is what we must address. Nuclear deterrence is the ability to inflict an unacceptable level of damage on a would-be aggressor. The ability of courts to sentence individuals to unacceptably lengthy periods of imprisonment would have the same effect. If it is credible for my hon. colleagues to argue that we must retain nuclear weapons because of their deterrent effect—I believe that such weapons do deter, and I have no hesitation in expressing my support for them —they must accept that deterrence in other fields has to be acknowledged and recognised.
If what I am suggesting deterred some people it would be worth while. People outside, including girls and young women, must be given confidence that they can walk around our cities unmolested. Within the past 24 hours we have heard reports of the hideous attack on two elderly people, resulting in their death, and I understand that teenagers have been raped. We read every day about such behaviour. It is becoming commonplace. Who can remember the names of the policemen who were recently killed while on duty? We have reached the stage at which names escape individuals.
When I was a boy, murder was an incident that kept the community alert and aware and was talked about not for weeks or months but for years. I remember the murder of "the man with the staring eyes" on the Buckey braes, not far from Dundee. That murder was the talk of the city for years. Today it would be forgotten within hours because such events are commonplace. We must not allow ourselves to become so conditioned to such evil, ghastly, hideous deeds as to think that we can do nothing or very little about them. I believe that we can.
Deterrence alone is not the answer, but it has a role to play. It must be part of a package. It ought to be incorporated into our system. I hope that the Minister, who normally has robust views about these matters, realises that I am not someone who thinks that we should do things just because they are good. I have never pursued that policy. Indeed, I have always stood up and stated my belief in the context of the circumstances, and I have voted accordingly, sometimes with difficulty. Some of my suggested


provisions are very lengthy and detailed as they address each offence and deal with it in turn. I am addressing the need for a deterrence capability.
If my hon. Friend were to tell me that the new clauses were technically flawed I should understand. It is the whole principle with which I am dealing. That is why the speech of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North was very interesting and worthy of a very careful hearing.
Deterrence does work. People can walk unmolested around the streets of Singapore at any hour of the day or night. I am not suggesting that we should have a regime like Singapore's, but the deterrence element of sentencing policy there does work. It is something that we should try to emulate.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 288.

Division No. 195]
[8.35 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dafis, Cynog


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dalyell, Tam


Ainger, Nick
Darling, Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davidson, Ian


Allen, Graham
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Alton, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Denham, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Austin-Walker, John
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H.


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, ms Angela


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Enright, Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Etherington, Bill


Bell, Stuart
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fatchett, Derek


Benton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Berry, Roger
Fisher, mark


Betts, Clive
Flynn, Paul


Blair, Tony
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foulkes, George


Boyes, Roland
Fraser, John


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Galloway, George


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Garrett, John


Byers, Stephen
George, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, De Norman A.


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gunnell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Harvey, Nick


Clelland, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Hendron, Dr Joe


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoon, Geoffrey





Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mudie, George


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Mullin, Chris


Hoyle, Doug
Murphy, Paul


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'Kshire)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Hara, Edward


Hume, John
Olner, William


Hutton, John
Parry, Robert


Illsley, Eric
Patchett, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pike, Peter L.


Jamieson, David
pope, Greg


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prescott, John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Radice, Giles


Keen, Alan
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Reid, Dr John


Khabra, Piara S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rowlands, Ted


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruddock, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Short, Clare


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S&F'sbury)


McGrady, Eddie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


McMaster, Gordon
Stevenson, George


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Alice
Turner, Dennis


Mallon, Seamus
Tyler, Paul


Mandelson, Peter
Vaz, Keith


Marek, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wallace, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Walley, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N


Maxton, John
Watson, Mike


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Meale, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Michael, Alun
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wilson, Brian


Milburn, Alan
Winnick, David


Miller, Andrew
Wise, Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wray, Jimmy


Morgan, Rhodri
Wright, Dr Tony


Morley, Elliot
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)



Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. John Cummings and


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. John Spellar.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Aspinwall, Jack


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)






Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gallie, Phil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bates, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beggs, Roy
Garnier, Edward


Bellingham, Henry
Gill, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Gillan, Cheryl


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Biften, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Body, Sir Richard
Gorst, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Booth, Hartley
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hague, William


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandreth, Gyles
Hannam, Sir John


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hawksley, Warren


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hayes, Jerry


Budgen, Nicholas
Heald, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clappison, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coe, Sebastian
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jenkin, Bemard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kilfedder, Sir James


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knox, Sir David


Dunn, Bob
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Elletson, Harold
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Legg, Barry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lidington, David


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, Dudley
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mackay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga





Major, Rt Hon John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Malone, Gerald
Soames, Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Spicer, sir James (W Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Tony
Spink, Dr Robert


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spring, Richard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sproat, Iain


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Merchant, Piers
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stewart, Allan


Moate, Sir Roger
Streeter, Gary


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Sweeney, Walter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sykes, John


Moss, Malcolm
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thomason, Roy


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Patnick, Irvine
Tredinnick, David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Walden, George


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Richards, Rod
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Waterson, Nigel


Robathan, Andrew
Watts, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wells, Bowen


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Whitney, Ray


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whittingdale, John


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Willetts, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. James Arbuthnot.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 21

DOGS

'-(1) If any person responsible for any dog or dogs, causes that dog or those dogs to enter land in contravention of the written instructions of the landowner or occupier, and the action of that dog or dogs causes damage to any form of property, disrupts any lawful activity, or interferes with the lawful enjoyment by the landowner or occupier of the property, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.'.—[Mr. Morley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 22—Digging for wild animals—
'(1). If any person enters land equipped for the purpose of digging for a wild animal sheltering in a subterranean refuge, he shall be guilty of a criminal offence unless he can show that, at the material time, he had the permission of the landowner or occupier to dig for that wild animal.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.'.
New clause 23—Dogs (protection of livestock)—
'. In the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, in section (2A)(b) the word "or" is inserted after the words "a trained sheep dog", and the words "or a pack of hounds" are omitted.'.
New clause 24—Dangerous dogs—
'. In the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, section 3, in subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following new paragraph
"or
(c) it injures any domestic animal either owned by, or authorised to be in that place by, the landowner or occupier.".'.
Government amendments Nos. 186 and 187.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the new clauses, as I believe that some misleading information has been circulated among hon. Members concerning the way in which clause 58 will apply.
The Minister said that the intention is that clause 58 will apply equally to fox hunts which trespass on other people's land even when notice has been given to them that they are not welcome, and to those who trespass in terms of disrupting fox hunts, which is the intention of the new clause.
I am also grateful for the cross-party support which the clauses have attracted. It is clear that there is widespread concern about the way in which the new offence will be implemented. I am only sorry that the Government have applied a three-line Whip, because a free vote on the issue would demonstrate that there is a great deal of concern on all sides of the House about an attempt to criminalise an activity which is designed to assist one particular group in
society, without making sure that such restrictions apply fairly.
Many people are surprised that the Government have given such a high priority to legislation of this kind simply at the behest of blood sports groups without any attempt at proper consultation with the wider community. Indeed, that contrasts sharply with issues such as offences involving racial attacks, on which the Government are reluctant to introduce legislation on the grounds that existing procedures deal with the matter. Under present law, there are procedures for dealing with the disruption caused by blood sports. I must also make it clear at this point that the Labour party opposes and unreservedly condemns violence, criminal damage and intimidation, whatever its source. It is totally untrue to suggest that such violence and intimidation come purely from one source.

Mr. Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman will see that clause 58(1) requires that the offender intends to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt. Is not the problem with his new clause the fact that the offence is absolute and that proof of intention is not required, so that

someone who committed the offence inadvertently, negligently, or without intending to do so would be liable not merely to a fine but to a sentence of imprisonment?

Mr. Morley: I shall touch upon that as I progress. The definition of intention is a key aspect. Because of the use of the word "intended" in the Bill it will be almost impossible to take any action against fox hunts that trespass on people's land, even when they have been given notice not to do so—I am not sure whether that was the intention. It is totally untrue that only hunt saboteurs are responsible for violence and intimidation. The evidence that I have collected suggests that it is the yobbish element associated with hunts who are responsible for violence, intimidation and convictions, rather than the other way round.
I only wish that I could be more precise, but unfortunately, although I tabled written questions to the Home Secretary asking him to provide details of convictions of people who had been involved in violent attacks on hunt supporters, he was unable to give me any figures. If he cannot provide such figures it begs the question, what is the scale of the problem? The Home Secretary does not know, but has seen fit to introduce legislation to deal with the problem.
I also understand that the police did not ask for the powers in the Bill and were not consulted about the clauses, how they would work in practice and their implications for police manpower and resources. My local force told me their grave reservations about the new clause and about the problems that they would have enforcing it.
A case can already be made to show that the new clause will give one group of people special protection—a group of people who pursue activities that the majority of people, including the majority of the rural community, totally oppose. If we are to provide powers of that sort—I am not convinced that they are necessary—they should also apply to trespasses by hunts, especially when the master has been given clear notice that the hunt is not welcome. Clause 58 does not do so.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because his facts are so wildly inaccurate that they speak for themselves. However, he must know that the Government's new clause applies as much to hunts as to anyone else. If a hunt were intentionally trying to disrupt someone else's lawful pursuit it would be just as liable as anyone else under the Bill. The fact is that hunts would not have that intention and that is why the clause will not apply to them.

Mr. Morley: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is talking complete nonsense. I have a letter here from Lord Ferrers at the Home Office. In direct response to my question about whether the clause would deal with hunts that trespass deliberately on people's land, he states:
simple trespass, by hunters or anyone else, would not be caught.
That makes it clear that hunts would not be affected by clause 58, even when they persistently trespass on other people's land—farmland, gardens, parks and nature reserves—although they have been told not to do so. If we have to have such powers—

Mr. James Paice: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that no one else would be prosecuted if they simply trespassed with no ulterior motive? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire,


North (Mr. Heald) explained, intent to disrupt must be proved, as clause 58 demonstrates, and that applies across the board. The act of simple trespass, to which he referred, remains a civil and not a criminal offence for anyone.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is completely missing the point. As the Bill stands, even when a hunt persistently and deliberately trespasses—I can cite cases in which hunts have been given notice in writing that they are not to go on people's land but persistently do so—it will simply have to say that it was an accident, that it did not mean to trespass or to be disruptive, and there is no way that the landowner can take any action in the courts other than civil action. Why should landowners face the expense and trouble of civil action when hunts receive special protection from the law?

Mr. Tim Devlin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A case reported extensively in the Darlington and Stockton Times concerned just such a landowner. He attempted to prevent a hunt from crossing his property because he has a wildlife sanctuary. He wrote to the master of the hunt on five occasions, but has been ignored. The hunt has continued to go over his land. That is why I tabled amendment No. 60, which I am sorry has not been selected, which states:
A person commits an offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air with any horse or dog for the purpose of hunting, trapping or taking game.
The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that clause 58 will be applied unfairly to hunt saboteurs and not to hunters.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I agree. I recognise that his amendment is similar to my new clause and his argument is clearly demonstrated in a brief circulated by the British Field Sports Society to Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament. Not surprisingly, the society complains about the new clauses, but states that at present the Bill will only make it
a criminal offence to trespass with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity.
The word "intention" is underlined. As a result, hunts will get off the hook, even when they deliberately cause problems and consistently cause damage. I mentioned the letter that I received from the Home Office Minister, which also makes that absolutely clear.
Having established, beyond doubt, that the law will be selective, one might question how new clause 21 attempts to apply it fairly. First, the new clause will not make inadvertent trespass a criminal offence, as suggested in the BFS brief. It applies to a person responsible for dogs who is informed in writing that the dogs are not allowed on an owner's land. It would not apply, for example, to an individual dog owner whose dog simply strayed on to a person's land when he was taking it for a walk, because the owner must be given notice in writing before such an offence takes place. Certain individual irresponsible dog owners may cause problems because their dogs persistently go on to people's land, and there may be an opportunity here as well for dealing with that kind of problem. I can think of a few examples myself where irresponsible dog owners have caused particular problems.
There is a real problem of disruption caused by hunts. Hon. Members will have received the excellent document, entitled "Riot" and compiled by the League against Cruel Sports, which gives 270 recent examples of hunts

trespassing on people's land, causing problems, damage and even intimidation. The 270 examples are only those which have appeared in newspapers or about which legal advice has been sought from the League. I am quite sure that many others go unreported.
I have two examples here of people who have written to me in response to a campaign by the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Both people live in the country. The first, a sheep farmer in Dyfed, writes:
Three dogs broke away from the pack and went into a different valley from the rest.
This was after giving notice to the local hunt that it was not to trespass on his land. He went on to say that, unattended, they entered his
land (32 acres) which was being grazed by 39 pregnant ewes and one ram. Despite the intervention of my wife, myself and one of our border collies, the foxhounds chased all the sheep off our land, right through the next farm, and into the land of the farm beyond that. There, some half a mile distant, they merged them in with another flock of the same breed. It took 3 days to sort and recover the correct sheep … Despite the ewes having been climbing over each other to cross barbed wire fences".
9 pm
Why should a sheep farmer have to go to all that trouble after giving notice to the hunt that it was not to go through his land? He wrote to tell me that the hunt came to him beforehand to say that it would be coming through on Tuesday, not seeking permission to come through. It was then that he told them verbally, and in writing, that the members of the hunt would not be allowed to go through his land.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman has quoted an isolated case and an extreme one. Will he also acknowledge that half a million lambs are killed each year by foxes? I do not think that he would find many sheep farmers opposed to the idea of the hunt being near or round their farms.

Mr. Morley: I do not want to be drawn into the ethics of fox-hunting when we are discussing these new clauses, as they go beyond what we are talking about. What evidence there is suggests that fox predation accounts for 0.5 per cent. of sheep, most of which are lambs that have died from hypothermia. That figure compares with 17 per cent. of sheep that die of hypothermia normally. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food itself does not regard fox predation as significant. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to suggest that this is an isolated case. I have already referred to 270 cases outlined in the document from the League against Cruel Sports. I have another letter, this time from a family in Barnstaple, Devon.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I do not hunt foxes on horseback although I have shot the creatures on a number of occasions. I must confess to him that from my own experience as a sheep farmer of a considerable number of years' standing the predation of foxes is rather higher than is indicated by the figures that he has just given. They are opportunist feeders and tend to pick up the twin lamb that is lying behind the hedge asleep when the mother and the other lamb are further off in the field, grazing. That is my personal experience.
In the incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred he said that the farmer had told the hunt not to come through


his land, but he also said that it was three hounds that broke away from the main pack which came through the land, not the hunt.

Mr. Morley: My impression from the letter was that the three hounds that broke away from the pack were from the main hunt which was on his land and which drove the sheep to a particular valley. That is all that I want to say about fox predation, apart from the fact that it is not significant.
Returning to my other example, the letter says:
During the afternoon we heard the hounds getting very close to our property and having several cats and a dog in the garden called them in. Ten minutes later the hunt charged through the garden in pursuit of a stag that had sought refuge there. As they went through the Huntmaster shouted, 'Stand back. We are the hunt.' The arrogance was truly amazing. The stag, poor thing, suffered as follows. The hounds chased it through the garden to a steep rise at the top, where it stood for twenty minutes, can you believe, being bitten, dragged and jumped on. One can hardly imagine the terror and pain it suffered before being shot. The stag was then dragged back through our garden, the children blooded and we were offered the liver. To myself, family and friends it was like some satanic ritual.
Those are two examples—I need hardly quote more —of the kind of problem that hunts cause. We need to make sure that this law, if we are to have it, applies fairly to all concerned. It does riot do so at present. New clause 21 will deal with that, and new clauses 23 and 24 will also deal with the problem of hunts and stock.
I should have thought that clause 22 was far less controversial than the others. It relates to the problem of badger-baiting. At present, people involved in the sickening sport of badger-baiting, who are often stopped and challenged on people's land, will simply say, unless they are caught in the act of digging the badger set, that they are looking for a fox's earth or intend to dig out a fox, which is not illegal. New clause 22 will help the police and the landowner. If people are caught on a landowner's land, equipped to dig subterranean animals, with shovels and sacks and the associated paraphernalia, they will be guilty of an offence if they cannot show that they have the permission of the landowner to be on that land. That will go some way towards strengthening the powers to prevent badger-baiting, which is a real problem in this country.
In conclusion, I believe that we need to tackle this serious problem. I am only sorry that we have not had the opportunity of discussing and voting on whether blood sports should be allowed to continue. I believe that that vote will come sooner rather than later, at which time these clauses may be academic. At present it is unjustified to give special protection to any one group in society without applying that law fairly. That is why I believe that the House should support the new clauses.

Mr. Maclean: We should be aware that clause 58 has nothing to do with hunting; it is all about public order. I shall quote the words of the statute because it seems that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has not followed them. The measures that we have taken to deal with disruptive trespassers apply only where anyone who
trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in … does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect of intimidating those persons … so as to deter them…from engaging in that activity,
or the effect of

obstructing that activity, or …disrupting that activity.
Yet, to listen to the hon. Gentleman, one would think that the whole debate was about hunting.
The statute would apply to disruption at the grand national, for example. Many examples have been cited, in Committee and by Opposition Members. The clause would apply to all sides. If a hunt or shooters or any other people in the countryside trespass on someone else's land with the intention of disrupting an activity, and deliberately disrupt that activity or threaten the people engaged in it—whether that activity be lambing, doing one's garden or holding a fete for the League Against Cruel Sports—this law will apply to them, and rightly so; they will deserve everything that they get.

Mr. Morley: Let me make two brief points. First, the Home Secretary himself emphasised in his speech to the Conservative party conference that the clause was aimed at hunt saboteurs, as the Minister well knows. Secondly, how does one prove that the trespass was intentional when a hunt goes on to people's land? That is the crux of the problem.

Mr. Maclean: No doubt if my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had been speaking at Aintree on Saturday, he would have emphasised the benefit of the clause there, and if he had been speaking to all the angling associations he would have emphasised the relevance of the clause there. This clause is relevant to all perfectly legal activities that can be liable to disruption. It is not right that they be disrupted.

Mr. Bill Etherington: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: No, because I want to answer the second argument advanced by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, about intention. It is up to the police and the prosecutor to prove intention in a variety of cases. We cannot have a law making simple trespass—circumstances in which someone, inadvertently or not, steps on to someone else's land—a criminal offence. Of course we must have intention. It would be necessary to prove intention on the part of saboteurs who go on to someone's land. If they go on to someone else's land and do not intimidate, threaten or obstruct the activity, they are not committing a criminal offence; the landowner will have to resort to the civil law, and rightly so. How could intention be proved? The difficulty of proving intention is common throughout the criminal law.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I do not want to take up too much time in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Michael: But will the Minister acknowledge that the clauses on disruptive trespass contain a power for a constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence to arrest him without a warrant? Does the Minister accept that the extensive proof is not as strong as he is suggesting in his own clauses?

Mr. Maclean: No, not at all. Of course, under the laws of our land, if a policeman reasonably suspects someone of wrongdoing, he may make an arrest. There is no automatic right of arrest; we are not giving any draconian power to landlords or old-fashioned lairds to summon the police


automatically and order them to do their duty—or what those landlords believe to be their duty—to haul anyone and everyone off their land.
Some of the rumours flying around Scotland at the moment are quite appalling. There is a rumour that this power will be used to stop people hill walking in the Scottish mountains. It is quite an extraordinary concept that the powers that we have introduced to deal with people who are intimidating, threatening or obstructing would ever be used by any sensible policeman against hill walkers in the Scottish mountains. It is just not on.
The other point is that only a policeman may make an arrest. If a policeman does not come to the reasonable assumption—

Mr. Etherington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclean: I want to make this very important point.
There are many misconceptions about what the power involves. If a policeman does not conclude that someone is a trespasser on someone else's land and engaged in intimidating people who are involved in a lawful activity or in threatening, deterring, obstructing or disrupting them, he does not have the power to arrest that person and cannot do so.

Mr. Etherington: I note that the Minister is stressing the term "lawful activity". What would be the position if a hunt were trespassing against the explicit wishes of a landowner and if hunt saboteurs, who perhaps had the sympathy of the landowner, were trying to do something about it? What would happen in that case, because that is the sort of situation that the clause would help to bring about?

Mr. Maclean: A decision would have to be made by policemen on the ground as to whether the conditions of the clause were satisfied. I cannot give an exact answer in every hypothetical case. What would be the position if saboteurs had gone on to someone's land and were not engaged in intimidating, obstructing or disrupting anyone? Many people do not want others to come on to their land. Many people with footpaths would much prefer members of the public and their dogs to keep off the footpaths. But that is tough luck; people have a right to use footpaths. Sometimes their dogs stray from the path—[Interruption.] That would be getting into a different argument. The idea that we should make simple trespass in those circumstances a criminal offence is quite extraordinary.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclean: I want to conclude my remarks; then the hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
New clause 21 would create a new offence if a dog entered land without the landowner's consent and it subsequently caused damage or nuisance. That would pose a risk for every dog owner who allowed his or her dog to stray on to private land, or even from the footpath, if that dog caused damage or distress as described in the new clause.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In order to restore some balance to the consideration of the clause, the Minister needs to show what thought he

has given to dealing with the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington).
Under the Minister's proposals, even if it could be proved that a hunt was reckless in trespassing and had ignored repeated attempts by the landowner to protect his property, it would not be committing an offence. Why has the Minister not brought forward something in the Bill to deal with the issues raised by my hon. Friends rather than simply picking holes in what we proposed in Committee, so giving him plenty of time to consider how to deal with the matter?

Mr. Maclean: The civil law is there to deal with that sort of trespass where there are no threats, no obstruction and no damage. Exactly the same law would apply to hunt saboteurs. The landowner could write to them and say, "Keep off my land. I don't want you to come." If they constantly ignored the landowner and came on to his land, they could not be arrested under this clause unless they intended to intimidate him, obstruct him or disrupt any lawful activity. If they did that, they would be caught. If a hunt or anyone else goes on to private land—whether or not any notification has been received about it—with the intention to disrupt any activities of other people, they will be caught as well, and rightly so.

Mr. Michael: This is an important matter because the Minister is making a point that needs to be understood. As a result of decisions in the House of Lords, what is said in this House is important in the interpretation of the law. Is the Minister asserting that in the circumstances to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has referred—where there has been an invasion of land by the hunt on a number of occasions—that evidence would be addressed by the measure that is in the Bill already? Is he saying that, just as hunt saboteurs can be dealt with under criminal law subject to the evidence that he has discussed, a hunt that trespassed in that way could be dealt with in that way?

Mr. Maclean: I am saying that repeated trespass by anyone is not a criminal offence and will not be a criminal offence under this provision as civil law can be used to stop it. I am also saying that, if anyone—whoever he or she may be—trespasses on someone else's land and commits the offence in the new clause, intending to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt any lawful activity, he or she will be committing an offence and a policeman may take action against that person.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I agree with the Minister's criticisms of the new clause but I am anxious about the stories that I have been hearing all day to the effect that the provision may not apply to Scotland. Hunts in my constituency operate on both sides of the border and I am a little concerned that people may be able to disrupt or intimidate the hunt when it gets that far down the road, whereas they cannot do so at this end of the road. Will the Minister advise me on that matter?

Mr. Maclean: I advise the right hon. Gentleman to take the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am afraid that I cannot be more helpful than that. It must be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide what laws he wishes to apply in Scotland.


I wish to conclude my remarks on new clause 21 before coming to some important Government amendments. If a real mischief is being caused because dogs are being allowed deliberately to enter private land and encouraged thereafter to behave in the disruptive ways described in the new clause, the person responsible may be committing the aggravated trespass offence already provided for in clause 58:

Sir Terence Higgins: The new clause does not say what my hon. Friend says it says. It does not mention "encouraging" the dogs. That is not the point made in the new clause.

Mr. Maclean: No, it does not have to. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe suggested that people may put their dogs on to land and encourage them to cause disruption. Whether they encourage them or not, if they intend to disrupt a lawful activity and threaten others in their lawful activity, they will be caught by the new clause. We use the words "intend" and "intimidate" rather than "encourage", but the practical effect is the same. If people encourage them, they must have some intention to do so.

Mr. Colvin: New clause 21 contains a fundamental flaw because it refers to circumstances in which
any person responsible for any dog or dogs … causes that dog or those dogs to enter land".
It does not state whether the cause is intentional or unintentional. The dictionary defines "cause" as a thing that makes something happen. For the clause to have an effect in law, it must stipulate whether an action is intentional or inadvertent. The new clause as drafted does not do so, so it must be defective.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point but I am not relying on that. It is wrong in principle to go down the route suggested by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe.
New clause 22 proposes to make it a criminal offence to enter land equipped for the purpose of digging for a wild animal. That proposal is unworkable because until a person actually engaged in digging for a wild animal, there would be no positive means of determining his purpose in entering the land as a trespasser. It would not be acceptable to make it an offence for a person simply to walk on to someone else's property carrying a spade, for example, but that is what the provision would mean. If damage is caused to the land by digging activity, that could constitute an offence; indeed, it is already an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Mr. Morley: Does the Minister think that it is normal activity to go strolling around people's land equipped with a spade?

Mr. Maclean: It may not be normal activity for many people to stroll around the countryside carrying a spade, although I can think of some who have done it. [Interruption.] Hon. Members acknowledge that they have done it. It is already an offence to dig out wild animals. It is nonsense to suggest that the police should anticipate that someone may be about to do that.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: No. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time. I must make progress.
New clause 23 seeks to make it an offence for a pack of hounds to be in a field in which there are sheep. Currently, a pack of hounds is one of several exemptions to the general provisions in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which makes it an offence for an owner to allow his dog to be at large in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep. I am not aware that packs of hounds, as opposed to any other type of dogs also exempted by the law, pose such a particular threat to sheep that would justify an amendment to the 1953 Act.
New clause 24 seeks to create a new offence in circumstances in which an owner allows his dog to enter private property and injure an animal. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 already creates wide-ranging and effective powers in respect of dogs which are dangerously out of control or injure any person. At the same time, under the Dogs Act 1871, magistrates courts have the power to make a control order over a dog that is considered dangerous —a dog that attacks people or animals. Such an order may specify how the control should be exercised—for instance, by requiring a dog to be muzzled or kept on a lead or excluded from specific places such as school playgrounds. I do not consider it necessary to introduce additional controls of the sort envisaged in the new clause.
Some of the proposals seek to criminalise simple trespass per se. Unless there are significant aggravated factors, such as disruption of a lawful activity or threatening behaviour or intimidation, trespass should not be caught by the criminal law but should remain a matter for the civil law. As I have stressed, the powers are not solely about hunting: they are about the disruption of any lawful activity in which people may be engaged. They are entirely even-handed in their effect.
I want to speak to Government amendments Nos. 186 and 187. I said in Committee that I would give careful consideration to the proposals to tackle the nuisance caused by groups who trespass on private land to indulge in the criminal activity of illegal hare coursing, terrorising local people in the process. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on his persistence in Committee in coming up with amendment after amendment to try to focus more carefully on the mischief involved. My hon. Friend was of considerable help to the Government and I must give him most of the credit for coming up with the eventual solution.
We have now produced amendments Nos. 186 and 187, which are amendments to the Game Act 1831 and the equivalent Scottish legislation, the Game (Scotland) Act 1832. They will increase the fine maxima for offences of trespass in search or pursuit of game, which will cover the evil of hare coursing. For England and Wales, where the mischief is more of a problem than in Scotland, we shall give the courts a specific power under the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960, so that when convicting a person of more serious poaching offences, they can order the forfeiture of vehicles that have been used to commit or facilitate the commission of the offence.
The measures represent an appropriate response to a distressing and intrusive phenomenon. I hope that they will have a welcome deterrent effect. I hope that they will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House as, in Committee, Opposition Members were keen to introduce them.

Mr. Maclennan: For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister say a word about the Government's intentions


regarding Scotland? His reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was a little misleading. The Minister suggested that it was a matter for Scotland as to whether the provisions on disruptive trespass would apply in Scotland. As I understand it, the Government have tabled an amendment to delete the application of the measures to Scotland—amendment No. 28, which will be considered later.

Mr. Maclean: It is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland whether or not he wishes the powers to apply in Scotland. He does not consider it necessary for the confiscation power to apply in Scotland at present. If a time comes when he considers it to be necessary, no doubt he will introduce the relevant Scottish legislation.
Clause 58 is a sensible, balanced measure that will be of help to all those who wish to participate lawfully in any activity in the countryside and do not wish to have it disrupted by people of whatever nature or persuasion who want to disrupt it. The Government amendments introduce proposals to deal with the mischief of illegal hare coursing which I believe will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Heald: Farmers in north Hertfordshire have been frightened by gangs of men coming up to bet on illegal hare coursing, who threatened the farmers and their wives. Gangs come up for the weekend and drive their four-wheel drive vehicles on to the land, often with shotguns hanging out of the windows. They shoot out of the windows of their vehicles, shout and scream. When they are approached by farmers or the local police, they mouth abuse and make threats. On occasions, haystacks have mysteriously burnt down a few days after a farmer has intervened, windscreens have been smashed and so on. It is a public order issue.
In Committee, I tabled a large number of amendments designed to increase the penalties for what are basically poaching offences and to allow the courts to confiscate the motor vehicles used to commit such offences. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that he would consider my amendments and, true to his word, he has returned on Report with Government amendments which I am perfectly satisfied deal with a major problem. I thank my hon. Friend for the seriousness with which he has dealt with the matter and for the result that he has produced.
I thank also the Police Federation, the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union for all the support that they gave me in tabling my amendments in Committee. I just want to say thank you very much to them all.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I support new clauses 21 and 22. I make it clear that I totally condemn violence and intimidation by a minority of animal extremists and huntsmen. Both activities are totally unacceptable. It is on record that more huntsmen have been found guilty of acts of violence while involved in hunts than animal extremists, but both must be clearly and roundly condemned.
In dispute is our rule of law, which the House surely accepts must be fair and equitable. On 21 January, my noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, stated in a letter to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill):

The new powers would protect anyone whose lawful activity was disrupted by trespassers whoever they might be.
In the House, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the powers apply to everyone equally. In practice, that is not true. For an offence to be committed, it will have to be proved that the person was trespassing and that he intended —that is the key word—to obstruct, disrupt or intimidate.
In recent years, there have been scores of cases in which hounds and huntsmen invaded private gardens, property and farmland. To prove such cases is virtually impossible. I shall illustrate that with a specific example, given in a letter from a lady living in Petersfield:
In October 1992, we had foxhounds riot through our garden … When a hunt official finally arrived, he was rude and arrogant and even appeared to think that the incident was funny … I dread to think what could have happened had my animals been free and dozing in the autumn sunshine as they usually do … There is no excuse for them to trespass, and claiming that they cannot control their dogs is a weak excuse and not acceptable. The law requires me to keep my dog under control, which is quite right … Especially in areas such as ours, where there are many sheep, beef and dairy farms and their animals are extremely vulnerable to a pack of rioting dogs …
'For at least six months of the year, I live in fear when I let my domestic animals outside, I do not suppose you could possibly imagine what that feels like.
Some hon. Members could not give a damn what those people feel like anyway. But the fact is that, under the proposed legislation, it would be impossible for that lady to take action to protect herself. That is why the law as proposed is not equitable and fair.
Every year, some 11,000 hunts meet. When chasing a defenceless wild animal, the hounds will attempt to follow their quarry wherever it runs, whether to railway lines, roads, private gardens, village streets or nature reserves. Some hon. Members have intervened on colleagues and pretended that hunting or controlling foxes in that way makes a difference to the total fox population. As they and the House know, that is sheer undiluted rubbish. At any one time, there could be anything between 300,000 and 500,000 foxes in this country. The hunts kill at the most 20,000 a year. Hunting makes no difference to the fox population whatever.
I regard blood sports as a cowardly and loathsome activity, but this debate is about justice and fairness. I hope that the House will support the new clauses.

Mr. Paice: I shall comment quickly on Government amendments Nos. 186 and 187, and follow on from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). I echo what the Minister said about my hon. Friend's amendments, to which I have added my name although I was not a member of the Standing Committee.
The problems to which my hon. Friend referred are widespread throughout East Anglia. They are not unique to north Hertfordshire. In my constituency every Sunday, gangs of people are illegally coursing. It is necessary for us to come to the House and persuade the Government to increase the penalties because, every week, there are people out coursing who the previous week were in court and fined a pathetic £150, or something of that order, which compares unfavourably with the bets that are laid on their dogs every Sunday morning. It is quite commonplace for bets of £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000 to be wagered, which makes the small fines insignificant and simply part of the occupational hazard.


The proposed measures will be welcomed by magistrates, because they wanted the power to confiscate vehicles—something which the magistrates in Cambridgeshire asked for—and by the police, because it will improve the morale of the police who go out and try to arrest those individuals or gangs, when they are coursing illegally, and find it demoralising to arrest them week after week knowing full well that any prosecution will end up with a derisory fine. Most important, the new measures will be welcomed by the many farm owners, landowners and their employees, who suffer intimidation, victimisation and, sometimes, violence at the hands of those gangs. I, too, express my thanks on behalf of my constituents for the fact that the Government have introduced the amendments.

Mr. Roger Gale: It gives me no pleasure to have to oppose our own Ministers. I am, as is well known, opposed to the hunt. I voted against it in the past and will do so at every opportunity that I am afforded in future. But, equally, I hold no brief for those who indulge in illegal activity, violence and intimidation.
I welcome the Government's proposals in so far as they go, but they do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary claim. They afford considerable protection to those who seek to hunt. They afford no protection whatever in real terms to those people who wish to enjoy their land without the hunt trampling over it.
I shall have to detain the House for a few moments because I want to place on record details of one or two more cases of people who have written to me. They are the type of cases that I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) will be proud to endorse.
From Badger cottage in Hampshire, Eric Ashby, who won the MBE for his services to wildlife, wrote to me on 22 March:
We have a 10 acre wildlife sanctuary here in the New Forest and have banned the hunts from trespassing for very many years. Eventually, after many incursions, some years ago we obtained a Court Injunction against the New Forest Hounds, but as the Masters have all been changed we no longer have the advantage of the Injunction.
We have a badger sett on our boundary and several hound visits have reduced numbers and since the Injunction expired we had within a few weeks three serious invasions of hounds. Now the once thriving badger sett has declined so much that the sett is no longer occupied.
But even worse, our seven rescued foxes in their grass pens, have been so traumatised that even people talking loudly on the road outside of our boundary frightens them, reminding them that a possible hunt visit might be starting.
This year we already have over 50 families hoping to see and stroke at least one or two of the foxes as they used to be able to do. Now great care has to be taken to persuade them to come to strangers, this is a great strain on us as we do want each visit to be a success.
In the past all our foxes would welcome visitors, coming running to meet them with tails wagging. All that has gone. It really is a terrible situation we now find ourselves in.
If hounds are making their way towards our property, hunt followers line our boundary, and the sound of shouting, cracking whips and galloping horses and hounds added together drives our poor foxes frantic … The situation has become quite unacceptable and we dread the thought that we shall have to undergo another season.
That was this year. In 1992, Eric Ashby wrote:
Our foxes were even more panic stricken than when the buckhounds invaded eight days ago, they were climbing the fences, tearing at the wire, running around as if demented. This evening they appear completely exhausted—and so are we
This has been going on for a long time. In 1991, he wrote:

It is not right and fair that we should be subject to the stress and worry of it all, plus the shyness of our badgers and our foxes being now so wary and fearful of strangers owing to hunt disturbance. This is real damage to our way of life and to our animals. Four breeding seasons… have now gone by without any badger cubs being born in our natural badger sett.
A letter from Essendon Hill in Hertfordshire states:
I have a 10½ acre small holding in the village with 3 sheep, 2 goats, 2 pigs, a Shetland pony, pigmy donkey, 40 chickens and six doves. The whole affair is run for the benefit of David, a profoundly handicapped Down's syndrome 7½ year old boy.
The writer says that he is the boy's custodian and father.
The letter states in respect of an incident:
I raced to the scene shouting and hollering—the dogs had ripped the backside out of the deer but it was still very much alive. I let the dogs finish the job—the poor animal screaming.
From Eyton, Leominster in Herefordshire, a letter about the Ludlow hunt states:
I could see my own animals just fleeing in terror … and many more were chased in pure terror down my long drive … We were met with what I can only describe as arrogant indifference from the Master of the hounds—we were barely acknowledged when I told him how undisciplined I thought the hounds were as not one had obeyed the horn or the calling of the 'whipper-in' … Some of my animals were stuck … in hedges and had to be pulled out backwards".
The letter continues in a similar vein.
A letter from Pett Bottom in Canterbury states:
To my knowledge our land has been invaded by the East Kent Hunt on at least six separate occasions.
I have a stack of such letters which go on and on. Each one is from a person who wanted to enjoy his own property in peace, without having a hunt trample all over it.
When the measure was first mooted, long before the Bill was published, I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary because I and the all-party animal welfare group, which I have the privilege to chair, were concerned about whether the measure would be even handed. I wrote on 8 November last year. On 29 November my right hon. and learned Friend replied:
The proposals do not apply solely to any specific group of people. The purpose, of the proposed legislation is to provide protection for those engaging in lawful activities, whoever and whatever they may be, from trespassers using disruptive behaviour.
Let us keep that letter on one side for the moment.
On 24 January this year, my right hon. and learned Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security:
We therefore also take the view that it is for landowners, including local authorities, to choose whether or not to allow hunting on their land".
Are local authorities to be given the right under the Bill to choose whether to allow huntsmen to cross their land? The letter continues:
It is quite unacceptable for hunters or hunt saboteurs—or anyone else—to assume that they have the right to enter private land without the occupier's permission. The new powers, outlined in my earlier reply, would protect anyone whose lawful activity was disrupted by trespassers, whoever they may be.
It is clear that my right hon. and learned Friend believes that the clauses in the Bill as it stands afford protection to all, not only to some. Indeed, to be fair, my hon. Friend the Minister reaffirmed that tonight.
A letter to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 11 February stated:
Where hunters commit other offences, such as criminal damage, the general criminal law applies.
My hon. Friend the Minister wrote to me on 21 March and said that aggravated trespass will deal with


the activities of those who deliberately try and disrupt or obstruct a perfectly lawful activity or intimidate those involved in that activity".
However, for hunters, like hunt protesters, the letter said:
unless they enter that land with the intent to obstruct or disrupt a lawful activity, then they will not have committed the offence of aggravated trespass.
All that is absolutely clear and, indeed, that is precisely what my hon. Friend the Minister has said tonight.
I shall return to the letter of 29 November from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. It said:
The proposals do not apply solely to any specific group of people. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide protection for those engaging in lawful activities whoever and whatever they may be".
In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister believe that the Bill is even-handed.
I have taken counsel's opinion. I am not at liberty to name him, but I am at liberty to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I shall not, only because I have not sought the man's permission to name him. [HON. MEMBERS: "You should have."] Perhaps I should have, but let me quote what he says; if, in due course, he reads the report of the debate and chooses to make his name known, it would seem to be entirely proper. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is a very learned silk. I went to the Queen's Counsel and sought his advice, because my right hon. and learned Friend is also a learned silk, I am not a lawyer and I wanted to match legal brain power with legal brain power. The counsel's opinion was:
You ask three questions:
Does the Bill at present reflect the stated intentions of the Home Secretary?
Answer: Yes, and no."—[Interruption.]
Fortunately, I was not-paying the bill—
The clause will, so far as the criminal law can be effective,"—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gale: No. The opinion continues:
The clause will, so far as the criminal law can be effective, protect landowners and others lawfully on the land from trespassers using disruptive behaviour.
The draftsman has chosen to make the offence, not one of strict liability but requiring the prosecution to prove mens rea. This obviously makes it more difficult to bring home a conviction. It will obviously be easier to persuade a Court that hunt saboteurs intend the necessary consequences of their actions, than it will be to demonstrate an intent by the hunts to do so. Indeed I think it would be difficult to obtain a conviction against a hunt which is trespassing.
Would the suggested new clause reflect the stated intentions of the Home Secretary?
Answer: No. It would not be evenhanded. It is focused almost exclusively on the hunts.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gale: I have said no once. We are short of time.

Hon. Members: He is a QC.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I do not want to enter into a contest of lawyers, but does the hon. Gentleman really believe that it is right to render people liable to punishment even by imprisonment if they commit an act inadvertently?

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Michael Colvin: Answer the question.

Mr. Gale: I shall answer the question. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for placing in order a comment that I might otherwise not have been able to make. I do not propose to support the new clause tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I shall not support it because I have tabled two amendments to a later part of the Bill, which I intend to move tomorrow night, if necessary, and to press to a vote, unless I can secure some form of undertaking from my hon. Friend.
My amendments are based on the counsel's opinion, which said:
Q.3 Is there a reasonably simple way of amending clause 52, to reflect the intentions of the Home Secretary or otherwise?
A.3 Yes. 'A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air, and in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or about to engage in on that or adjoining land in the open air which has the effect of"—
doing various things. That would remove the mens rea, so that is an answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
The counsel continued:
Since the wording would lessen the degree of criminality, in that it would become a strict"—

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gale: No.

Mr. Carlile: On that very point?

Hon. Members: Go on.

Mr. Gale: Let me finish, and then I shall give way."
Since the wording would lessen the degree of criminality, in that it would become a strict liability offence, I would amend sub-clause 3 to make the penalty non-imprisonable. The benefit of making the offence one of strict liability will be more nearly to equate the level of criminal responsibility between the huntsman and hunt saboteur.

Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one consequence of his proposal would be that if, for example, I happened to lose control of my car because it burst a tyre, and it went through his hedge into his garden, I would be guilty of his suggested criminal offence? Surely that is an absurd proposition of law. Yet it follows clearly from the words that he read out, to which I listened with extreme care.

Mr. Gale: That would be an absurd proposition, and it is not what my amendment suggests.
I realise that there are many hon. Members who will choose to rubbish any suggestion made tonight or in future to try to make the measure—half of which most of us support—more even-handed. However, I must tell the Home Secretary and the Minister that I entirely accept the possibility that the new clause may be flawed. I am also prepared to accept that there are likely to be differences of opinion between lawyers and that my amendments, which may or may not be debated tomorrow night, may not be perfect either.
However, I am certain that the Home Secretary has given a clear undertaking that he intended to introduce even-handed legislation, and that the Minister of State has expressed his belief that the legislation is even-handed. I am equally certain that not one animal welfare organisation


believes that it is even handed. Many people believe that the measure as it stands is likely to prove a legal dog's breakfast that will make the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 pale into insignificance—we heard some intimation of that a few moments ago.
I seek from the Minister, and hope to obtain, a clear confirmation that he will take the idea away and consider it with the Home Secretary, and if necessary introduce an amendment in another place that will make. the Bill the even-handed legislation that we all believe is necessary.

Mr. Michael: I commend the courage of some Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who have sought to inject balance into an ill-considered part of the Bill. There may be deficiencies in the new clauses or in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Thanet, North, but there are also certainly failings in the Bill as it stands.
Unlike some of his Back Benchers, the Minister has not sought to condemn or to deal with hunts that disrupt lawful activities, as he has sought to tackle those who seek to disrupt hunts. The lack of balance lies in the fact that opponents of hunting can be arrested because a police officer thinks that they intend to do something. They can be banned from returning to an area for three months. That is more draconian than what happens to those who offend by rape, violence or other serious offences.
In Committee, hon. Members who support hunting said that the code of conduct for masters of hunts would prevent the irresponsibility that has been well documented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the League against Cruel Sports and others. All we seek is balance. Those matters are not being dealt with by the Bill, whereas the disruption of hunting is. If the code of conduct is so stringent, no responsible hunt would be at risk from the new clause.
With regard to the new clause relating to badgers, the Minister ridiculed the real problem and ignored the fact that people have been able to use a gap in the law to dig for badgers and pretend that they have been doing other things. Those are two gaps in the law which need to be addressed. They are addressed by new clauses 21 and 22 and that is why we should support both of them.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I had not intended to speak, but I have been provoked into doing so by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). There are three short points that need to be put on the record. First, those who support the new clause, which proposes to attack hunting, are clearly not capable of distinguishing between an inadvertent act of trespass and a deliberate act of trespass to disrupt the lawful pursuit of someone else. It is only the latter that the new clause seeks to address. In addressing the problem, the new clause is even-handed in its treatment of those who participate in such activities, and any argument to the contrary is ill-founded.
Secondly, it was alleged that much of the violence has come from the hunting side. I certainly accept that some people have been successfully prosecuted for violence in those circumstances. However, there is a clear distinction, which fair hon. Members will accept, between those who are pursuing a lawful pursuit, who are being harried, chased and attacked by others and who retaliate in a way which is not allowed under the law but which is the result of extreme provocation, and those who pursue others and attack them deliberately in order to make it impossible for

them to carry out their lawful activities. The latter is indulged in by hunt saboteurs, and members of the hunt who have been convicted of violence are convicted only in circumstances in which there has been extreme provocation. I am not saying that that is an excuse. It is not an excuse in law, but it is a distinction.
Thirdly, I come to the Queen's Counsel's opinion that my hon. Friend said he had received—I have no doubt that he received it. It would be interesting to know who that QC was. It would also be interesting to know who paid for the opinion, as my hon. Friend told us that he did not. I do not think that there is any value in the opinion because, as any lawyer knows, the value that comes out of an opinion depends on the brief that has gone in to instruct it. If the brief went in from an organisation such as the League against Cruel Sports, it would be a case of rubbish in, rubbish out.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 303.

Division No. 196]
9.53 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Ms Jean


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cousins, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Cummings, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Allen, Graham
Dafis, Cynog


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davidson, Ian


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Denham, John


Barnes, Harry
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H.


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bennett, Andrew F.
Enright, Derek


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Berry, Roger
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Blunkett, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Bowden, Andrew
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith
Foulkes, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galbraith, Sam


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Byers, Stephen
Gapes, Mike


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John


Callaghan, Jim
George, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mildred


Chisholm, Malcolm
Graham, Thomas


Clapham, Michael
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gunnell, John


Clelland, David
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hall, Mike


Coffey, Ann
Hanson, David


Connarty, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hendron, Dr Joe


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith (Streatham)






Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)


Hoey, Kate
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mudie, George


Home Robertson, John
Mullin, Chris


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Paul


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, Michael (N W'Shire)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Hara, Edward


Hoyle, Doug
Olner, William


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Neil, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Patchett, Terry


Hume, John
Pendry, Tom


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prescott, John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jowell, Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Khabra, Piara S.
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'trt NW)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sedgemore, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McGrady, Eddie
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spellar, John


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stevenson, George


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mallon, Seamus
Vaz, Keith


Mendelson, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marek, Dr John
Walley, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wareing, Robert N


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Watson, Mike


Martlew, Eric
Welsh, Andrew


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n w)


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Meale, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wise, Audrey


Milburn, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Miller, Andrew
Wray, Jimmy


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wright, Dr Tony


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morgan, Rhodri



Morley, Elliot
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mr. Dennis Turner.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)





Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forsyth, Michael (Strirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bates, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beggs, Roy
French, Douglas


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, Sir George


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillan, Cheryl


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir A.(Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Harvey, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Nick


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cash, William
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Churchill, Mr
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coe, Sebastian
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jenkin, Bemard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon, Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkwood, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkwood, Archy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lightbown, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)






Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Luff, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maclean, David
Soames, Nicholas


Maclennan, Robert
Spicer, Sir James (W Doret)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Madel, Sir David
Spring, Richard


Maginnis, Ken
Sproat, Iain


Maitland, Lady Olga
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mates, Michael
Sykes, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor,Ian (Esher)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Trimble, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Tyler, Paul


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Paice, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wallace, James


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Watts, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wells, Bowen


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whittingdale, John


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robathan, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Tom
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Teller for the Noes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

New Clause 22

DIGGING FOR WILD ANIMALS

'(1). If any person enters land equipped for the purpose of digging for a wild animal sheltering in a subterranean refuge, he shall be guilty of a criminal offence unless he can show that, at the material time, he had the permission of the landowner or occupier to dig for that wild animal.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.'.—[Mr. Morley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 302.

Division No. 197]
[10.07 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dalyell, Tam


Adams, Mrs Irene
Darling, Alistair


Ainger, Nick
Davidson, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Alton, David
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Denham, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dewar, Donald


Armstrong, Hilary
Dixon, Don


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Austin-Walker, John
Donohoe, Brian H.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dowd, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barron, Kevin
Eagle, Ms Angela


Battle, John
Enright, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Etherington, Bill


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Faulds, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blair, Tony
Foulkes, George


Blunkett, David
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Marie


Bowden, Andrew
Galbraith, Sam


Boyes, Roland
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Gapes, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
George, Bruce


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Byers, Stephen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Gunnell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hain, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Hendron, Dr Joe


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ann
Higgins Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dafis, Cynog
Hoyle, Doug






Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Olner, William


Hume, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hutton, John
Parry, Robert


Ingram, Adam
Patchett, Terry


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L.


Janner, Greville
Pope, Greg


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prescott, John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jowell, Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quin, Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Randall, Stuart


Khabra, Piara S.
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfedder, Sir James
Reid, Dr John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lewis, Terry
Rogers, Allan


Livingstone, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooney, Terry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


Lynne, Ms Liz
Ruddock, Joan


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McFall, John
Short, Clare


McGrady, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McMaster, Gordon
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Spellar, John


Madden, Max
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mahon, Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mallon, Seamus
Stevenson, George


Mandelson, Peter
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Vaz, Keith


Martlew, Eric
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Maxton, John
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Michael, Alun
Watson, Mike


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Welsh, Andrew


Milburn, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Miller, Andrew
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wilson, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Winnick, David


Morgan, Rhodri
Wise, Audrey


Morley, Elliot
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mowlam, Marjorie



Mudie, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Dennis Turner.


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Aspinwall, Jack


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Arbuthnot, James
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)





Baldry, Tony
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Beggs, Roy
Gallie, Phil


Beith, Rt Hon A. J
Gardiner, Sir George


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Garnier, Edward


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gill, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gillan, Cheryl


Blackburn, Dr John G
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Booth, Hartley
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Harvey, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Nick


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoast-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bemard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Kirkwood, Archy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas






MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maclennan, Robert
Soames, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, Sir David
Spink, Dr Robert


Maginnis, Ken
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Stephen, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Sykes, John


Merchant, Piers
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thomason, Roy


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trend, Michael


Norris, Steve
Trimble, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
Tyler, Paul


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Wallace, James


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Robathan, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Widdecombe, Ann


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Willetts, David


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wilshire, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Tom
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Sims, Roger
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 42

SUPPLY AND VIEWING OF VIDEOS LIKELY TO HARM CHILDREN

'-(1) In subsection (2) of section 7 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act") (Classification certificates), at the end, there shall be inserted the following words—
"; Or
(d) a statement that, either because it presents an inappropriate model for children, or because it is likely to cause psychological harm to a child, no video recording containing that work is to be

supplied for private use, or viewed in any place to which children under the age of 18 are admitted.

(2) After section 12 of the 1984 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
12A. Where a classification certificate issued in respect of a video work states that no video recording containing that work is to be supplied for private use, or viewed in any place to which children under the age of 18 are admitted, a person who

(a) supplies a video recording containing the work for private use,
(b) offers to do so, or
(c) permits the video work to be viewed in a place to which children under the age of 18 are admitted

is guilty of an offence, unless the supply or viewing is made for the purpose of arrangements made by the designated authority.".'.—[Mr. Alton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Alton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 107—Definition of an obscene article (computer pornography)—
'.In section 1(2) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (definition of an article) there shall be added at the end after the word "pictures" the words "or any items which store data for immediate or future retrieval".'.

Mr. Alton: The House will be relieved to know that, instead of the protracted debate that many had expected would take place this evening, it may be possible to curtail both the debate and the need to make the kinds of arguments that people had anticipated would be made in the House this evening. That will be possible not least because the Home Secretary has been very obliging to those who have approached him and spoken to him directly about these issues, both today and in the weeks preceding the debate. He has been open to the arguments which have been put before the House by me and by many other colleagues.
I couple with those remarks my thanks to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the official Opposition spokesman on home affairs, who has also intervened in order to try to make progress on the issue of video violence which is covered in my new clause.
I will briefly paint the background to the issue in order to put the debate in context. More than a year ago, I asked the House whether it would support an early-day motion, which I tabled, to establish a royal commission to look into the effects on the community of levels of violence both on television and on video. More than 100 Members from both sides of the House supported that call.
I still believe that there should be a major long-term study to examine the links between real-life violence and that which is transmitted by the media. Since that early-day motion, a number of cases have come before the courts which have involved the use of videos and videos have been cited in the course of those court cases. I think particularly of the Suzanne Capper case in Manchester, where a young woman was tortured and brutally murdered while the sound tape of the movie "Child's Play 3" was transmitted to her. Quite recently, in a case in Cardiff the video "Deuce" was cited as an influence on the young people who were involved in a terrible murder.
Therefore, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill provides an opportunity for the House to address this issue and to consider action which it might be appropriate to


take. I say at the outset that I am especially grateful to hon. Members from both sides of the House for their support. More than 220 right hon. and hon. Members have signed the new clause. They are drawn from all parts of the political spectrum and from all political parties.
The co-sponsors of the new clause—the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), the hon. Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne)—have been especially helpful in formulating the new clause and ensuring that it has enjoyed the support of many people in many parts of the House of Commons.
In addition, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Professional Association of Teachers have given their support to the new clause. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been instrumental in ensuring the support of those two agencies, for which I am grateful.
My new clause has three aims: first, to open the debate; secondly, to demonstrate widespread concern; and, thirdly, to stimulate change. I think that in all those respects it has achieved its purpose.
I refer the House briefly to the report that was published only a few days ago over the Easter recess by Professor Elizabeth Newsom and her colleagues—some 25 psychiatrists, psychologists and paediatricians who are some of the most distinguished and eminent people in their field. Suffice it to say—many hon. Members will have seen the report—that what they have said represents a major change from the previously accepted orthodoxies.
The report states:
Many of us hold our liberal ideas of freedom of expression dear, but now begin to feel that we were naive in our failure to predict the extent of damaging material and its all too free availability to children. Most of us would prefer to rely on the discretion and responsibility of parents, both in controlling their children's viewing and in giving children clear models of their own distress in witnessing sadistic brutality; however it is unhappily evident that many children cannot rely on their parents in this respect. By restricting such material from home viewing, society must take on a necessary responsibility in protecting children from this as from other forms of child abuse.
Those are the words of the eminent and distinguished psychologists to whom I think that we should pay enormous attention.

Mr. Donald Anderson: That brave volte face on the part of so many distinguished scientists was supplemented by a call that I had today from the leading child psychiatrist in my city, who said that she sees the malign effect of that diet of violence every day in the children whom she interviews and totally supports the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is in line with the evidence given last September to the House of Lords Broadcasting Group, when Professors Sims and Gray, professors of psychiatry and paediatrics respectively, pointed to
a vast world literature, more than 1,000 papers, linking heavy exposure to media violence with subsequent aggressive behaviour".
I appreciate that there are varying views about that. I do not claim that there is a proven demonstrable link. Indeed, it is

extremely hard to prove such a link. But most of us with any common sense recognise that video and television images are likely to have an effect on those who see them, which is why I commend to the Home Secretary the idea of a long-term research project to look at those questions. It should involve those leading psychiatrists and the eminently distinguished people who signed that paper.
I also commend the research of Dr. Susan Bailey, the forensic scientist who works for the Home Secretary. She looked at 40 juvenile offenders who committed some of the worst and most violent crimes ever committed in the UK. She says that, in 25 per cent. of those cases, the youngsters had been exposed to high levels of gratuitous violence. A recent poll showed that more than one in 10 adolescents feel violent having watched a violent film.
In addition, public opinion has been changing. Last Sunday's Observer newspaper published a poll showing that 70 per cent. of people want tougher regulations to deal with violent video and television material. I was not surprised, therefore, that when my new clause became public knowledge, petitions bearing more than 100,000 signatures arrived in support of the terms of the new clause and I presented them in the House just before the Easter recess. The petitions were signed by many ordinary parents who know that it is not enough simply to leave the matter to parents. However good a parent may be, children go into other people's homes where they are exposed to material which their parents would not wish them to see.
What control can parents have, especially when, as the Consumers Association points out, many children who are under age gain access to those videos? The Consumers Association published a report in Which? magazine saying that one in 10 of the children receiving videos had no membership card and were not entitled to the videos that they were obtaining. A woman to whom I was talking only yesterday told me that a six-year-old child was able to take the family's membership card to a local video shop and obtain an 18-rated video. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know as. well as I do that that is a fact of life in our country today.
Home Office figures show that 1.1 million children watch television for one and a half hours after watershed. That, too, is an issue to which the House must return.
It is not entirely surprising that there has been some scaremongering about the new clause, as huge vested interests are involved. Last year alone, some £650 million was generated by 18 and 15-rated videos. It would be surprising, therefore, if some of those who might be affected did not react. It is worth calling in aid yesterday's leader in The Times, which said:
This amendment does not advocate a mindless ban on even the most benign horseplay. It seeks to extend the powers of the British Board of Film Classification to judge, in an intelligent and conscientious way, each individual film on its own merits and to decide which of them should be put definitively beyond the reach of children.
That is what the new clause seeks to do by introducing new categories of "not suitable for home entertainment" based on whether the model may be inappropriate for children or may cause them psychological damage. The proposal is perfectly workable and enforceable, according to much respected opinion and legal opinion. Again, I can see there is an alternative view. The House of Commons and the Home Secretary have to come up with something that is workable and that satisfies all sides of the argument. I fully appreciate that.


I believe that my new clause would catch about 3 per cent.—perhaps 3 or 4 per cent.—of the ultra-violent videos. The idea that it sets out to catch "Schindler's List" or, dare I say it, "Toad of Toad Hall" or "Tom and Jerry" —I even heard "Bambi" mentioned—is so absurd as to be beyond belief. No one in the House of Commons seriously believes that that is the intention of a single signatory of the new clause. If the British Board of Film Classification cannot tell the difference between "Bambi" or "Toad of Toad Hall" or "Schindler's List" and something like "Child's Play 3", it is time that we got a new British Board of Film Classification.
For the industry to rely on gratuitous violence or degrading material to justify its existence is a disgrace. The presence in our society of a depraved video culture is a subject to which we in the House of Commons should return. I hope that the Select Committee on Home Affairs will have a chance to look at the subject in detail.
10.30 pm
I was affected by something that the hon. and learned Member for Burton said to the House some months ago. He told us that in the United States of America, before a child reaches the age of five, he or she will have seen about 20,000 homicides. Do we want that disease in this country, too? We must draw a line between censorship, to which all of us feel a great aversion in principle, and the protection of children. With 46,000 children in this country on child protection registers, through fear of physical or sexual abuse, all of us must think deeply about how we can cope with gratuitous violence, penetrating and saturating our homes and living rooms day in, day out. Our first obligation must always be to those children.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am anxious to nail the argument of those who say that such material is innocuous and does not cause harm. If that were so, what is the justification for the amount that we spend on video material to train our military, our tank and air crews, and those in industry and education? Why do we waste so much money on that if it does not have an impact on the recipients?

Mr. Alton: In addition, why does the advertising industry spend £1.6 billion trying to sell us its wares if such material does not have an effect on anybody? It seems an extraordinary waste of money if that is the case. The hon. Gentleman is right, which is why we must take such issues very seriously.
I first gave my new clause to the Home Secretary when the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and I went to see him. He was courteous when he met us to discuss the issue about three months ago. Before that, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I met the Home Secretary last year, when I also raised some of the issues. I know that the Home Secretary has tried to respond at every stage. The new clause has also been with the industry for that period, so there has been an opportunity to discuss it at length and for people to come forward with alternatives.
My new clause has widespread support throughout the House, including that of 220 right hon. and hon. Members, among them a clutch of former Ministers. I have also had the helpful support of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who wrote a superb article in this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph. He advanced a powerful argument revealing the differences

between censorship and protection. The effect has been to show the House of Commons at its best. It has demonstrated how people can come together on an issue that has nothing to do with party politics and can be resolved in a common-sense and adult way.
I am grateful that the Home Secretary has been able this afternoon to announce on television—no doubt he will say more to the House in due course—measures that will lead to tighter enforcement. I strongly welcome his moves to introduce penalties that will result in increased fines and imprisonment for those who sell such videos to children who go into shops where they should not be given access to such violent material.

Ms Angela Eagle: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Did he see the report today about the viewing habits of known offenders compared with the viewing habits of children of the same age who had not offended? Did the hon. Gentleman notice that viewing patterns tend to revolve around programmes such as "The Bill" and soap operas? The report's most significant point was that offenders are in large numbers readers of The Sun.

Mr. Alton: I will resist the temptation to be drawn into a wider debate about the quality of our newspapers, but I accept the hon. Lady's point that many other factors are at work in society. People misrepresent my position when they suggest that I naively believe that the only influencing factor in the development of young people is exposure to video violence. In the sick culture that exists in so many parts of urban society, as the hon. Lady knows, youngsters have so little of value or quality to fill their lives that violent videos, drugs and pornography become substitutes. Surely we can do better for our young people. We owe them an obligation to try.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: In 1982, I introduced a ten-minute Bill that eventually became the Video Recordings Act 1984. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a way forward for the Home Secretary would be to draw to the attention of all magistrates the fact that, under the 1984 Act, they can impose a fine of up to £20,000 for a first offence of renting or selling a video that is not classified for the age group of the person to whom the video is rented or sold? Would it help to inform magistrates that that is already the law?

Mr. Alton: That sounds like a very constructive suggestion. I will leave Home Secretary to elaborate on penalties and fines.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: The hon. Gentleman referred to young people and education and to the Professional Association of Teachers, in which I declare an interest. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the association conducted a survey earlier this year, the results of which will be published soon? It found that a significant number of teachers believe that current safeguards designed to protect children from exposure to adult entertainment are not working. In particular, teachers believe—among other things—that the current system of film classification is not tough enough, with some material classified with an age rating too low for its content. Is not that survey likely to support the hon. Gentleman's arguments?

Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) has given significant support during the progress of the Bill. I am grateful to him and to the Professional Association of Teachers, whose report I have read. It refers also to behavioural problems in the classroom caused by youngsters watching television often as late as midnight and being exposed regularly to violent video material. We should listen to our teachers. That may be another factor in the discipline problems that confront them in our schools.
Before entering the House, for six years I worked with children with special needs. I accept that not every child will become a psychopath or commit violent crimes as a result of exposure to such material. However, if there is no parental support and things are taken out of context, we should not be surprised that such material may tip over the edge a child who is anyway predisposed to committing a violent crime.
The second point made by the Home Secretary in his statement on television this afternoon was the need for greater rigour by the British Board of Film Classification, which I strongly welcome. But neither measure would have been enough unless the Home Secretary had been prepared to go the extra mile of introducing legislative safeguards, which he has agreed to do.
I welcome his support and his willingness to introduce an amendment when the Bill goes to the other place which will incorporate the two criteria mentioned in my new clause, of material that
presents an inappropriate model for children
and is
likely to cause psychological harm to a child",
among those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will draw up for the British Board of Film Classification to examine when it judges the suitability of films for general circulation in the future. I believe that that represents significant progress. It shows the House of Commons and Parliament at its best. It shows us listening to public opinion. It shows the Government listening to Opposition colleagues and particularly to Back-Bench opinion in Parliament.
The Home Secretary also said that he will involve those who have taken part in the debate in the drafting of the amendment that will be introduced in the other place. That, again, is the sort of guarantee that I would have been looking for. Therefore, in that spirit, I am happy to say to the Home Secretary that it will not be my intention to press my new clause to a Division. If he is able to give the assurances which I understand he is—from what he has been saying publicly today and in the meetings to which I have alluded—there should be no reason for the House to divide. I hope that we will be able to make progress together on this important question.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has provided us this evening with an opportunity to consider an extremely important issue —the concern that is widely felt about the availability of unacceptable videos. I hope that no one will be in any doubt that the Government share those concerns and have acted to translate them into action. Indeed, since we came to office, the legal position governing the availability of videos has been transformed. In 1984, controls over the availability of videos were introduced in the Video Recordings Act 1984, a private Member's measure

sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), whose ten-minute Bill was referred to earlier.
Much of the argument that has taken place outside the House on the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman's new clause has been irrelevant to the questions that we have to decide. Reams of newsprint have been devoted to the question whether there is any evidence that human behaviour can be influenced by what people see on videos. For my part, I have never been in any doubt that it can. It seems to me self-evident that, just as human behaviour can be influenced for the good by what is seen in the theatre, on film or video, so it can be influenced for the bad. Much argument is centred around whether it is appropriate to have a regime of censorship in this area. We already have censorship. Indeed, we already have a system of control that is the most rigorous in Europe and, probably, in the western world.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I take just a minute or two to explain exactly how the present system works. All video works, except those falling into a few exempted categories, must be submitted for classification to the British Board of Film Classification before they can be supplied on a commercial basis.
The board may decline to issue a certificate altogether —and sometimes does—or require cuts. If a work is classified, it is placed in one of a number of categories. It might be one of unrestricted supply, or it might be supplied only to persons over a certain age—15 and 18—or supplied only through licensed sex shops. It is an offence under the Video Recordings Act to supply, or possess for supply, an unclassified work, with a maximum fine of £20,000, or to supply a work to someone below the relevant age, where the maximum fine is £5,000.
The board is formally required as a condition of designation not to classify any work that would be unlawful—for example, obscene—and to pay special regard to the fact that the works will be viewed in the home without the access control that exists in the cinema. That latter point is particularly relevant in the present context, because it means that, if the board really is persuaded that a work is unsuitable for viewing in the home, it can, and does, refuse it a certificate.
We have one of the most rigorous control systems in the western world. But it is quite clear from the extensive support that the new clause has attracted that many think that it needs to be strengthened further. I recognise and share that concern.

Mr. Beith: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I shall complete this part of my remarks.
There are a number of different ways of tackling the problem.
I have made it clear from the outset that, while I understand the sentiments that underlie the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and which have motivated those who have expressed support for it, I cannot accept the new clause itself. The effect of the new clause, whatever the hon. Gentleman might have intended, would be to ban the supply to adults of all videos that are unsuitable for viewing by children. That would, in my view, go much too far and would be deeply unpopular with our constituents once they understood its scope.


10.45 pm
Of course I want to tackle what we all agree is a very worrying problem. I have therefore had extensive discussions with the people most closely involved in the issues and would like to propose to the House an alternative approach which in my view will meet the concern that has been expressed.
That approach has three elements. First, it relies on more rigorous enforcement of controls under the Video Recordings Act 1984. The Bill already contains provisions that will make it easier to investigate widespread offences. That is achieved through clause 77, which enables local authority trading standards officers to investigate offences under the Video Recordings Act which are part of a chain of supply in their area but which are committed outside their area. That will enable them to investigate an entire chain of supply and will significantly improve the enforcement of the Act.
The Bill also expands the definition of video work and video recording to include moving images which are electronically stored on a recording device other than a magnetic tape or disk. That will ensure that the law keeps pace, as it must do, with developing technology such as computer pornography.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the great assurance that the Home Secretary has given, does it not cause him great concern that, 10 days ago, the EC Commission sent an official notification to the Secretary of State for National Heritage that it plans to challenge in the European Court the Government's policy of national licensing for the use of pornographic video films sent by satellite television, which enabled the Government to stop the import of filthy videos? Does not the Home Secretary think it very strange and unfortunate that the Government have not announced the fact that 10 days ago they received official notification of prosecution in the European Court?

Mr. Howard: The considerations that apply to the problem to which my hon. Friend refers are not the same as those which would apply to video recordings. I do not think that he need be concerned that the controls that I am announcing will fall foul of any European legislation.
The recent debate has revealed a widespread perception that the provisions that I have just identified are by themselves not enough. I want to make absolutely sure that dealers who flout the provisions by supplying videos to underage children, or by supplying videos which have not been classified at all, face stringent penalties. They should be under no illusion that they can get away with such behaviour merely for the price of a fine which they might well regard as just another business expense.
I therefore propose to provide a penalty of imprisonment to deal with the worst cases. Those who supply videos in breach of an age classification will face the possibility of up to six months in prison, while those who supply unclassified works will be liable to a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment as well as an unlimited fine. That is the first element of my approach.
The second element involves the British Board of Film Classification with which I have been discussing these issues for some time. I know that the board already takes care in its task of classifying videos and that it is especially conscious of the need to maintain public confidence in its operations. It recognises that it has a responsibility to respond to public concerns and that public attitudes to the

depiction of violence are changing. Consequently, it accepts the need for its classification decisions to reflect those changing attitudes and it proposes to stiffen the standards that it applies when classifying works. It will mean that some works which are at present placed in the 15 category will be placed in the 18 category and others will be refused a certificate altogether. In other cases, works will be classified only on condition that significant cuts are made.
The third element of my strategy will underpin and help to deliver the tougher standards from the BBFC. I propose that the Video Recordings Act should be amended to require the BBFC to take into account certain factors when it decides whether to classify a video and, if so, in what category to put it. We will obviously need to consider carefully what those factors should be, but they would include—for example, whether a work may cause psychological harm to a child and whether it portrays techniques that it would be undesirable for a child to imitate.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Home Secretary clarify one point? Would the legislation be retrospective so that existing videos which have received a BBFC classification, let us say for the age of 15, would be changed if the BBFC is required to uprate them to an 18 category? How will he deal retrospectively with videos that are already in existence and have already been classified?

Mr. Howard: I doubt that it is possible to deal with that problem. There are some 24,000 separate works in existence in the country and, of course, each work can be copied any number of times. I have given some thought to the question that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It is a serious question, but I see no practical way in which his concern could be met.

Mr. William Cash: rose—

Mr. Alton: rose—

Mr. Howard: I shall give way first to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He will be well aware that videos such as "Child's Play III" have been very much at the heart of the debate. Therefore, will he give some consideration to specific videos where a referral or even a judicial review to the BBFC takes place, perhaps through Members of Parliament or some other agency that he may care to name, so that there is some way by which the public are able to draw to his attention specific videos which are already in circulation without having to go throughout the entire library—a point that I well understand?

Mr. Howard: I shall certainly consider very carefully the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I appreciate his recognition of the practical difficulties to which I referred earlier and I am certainly prepared to consider his point.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give us an assurance that, in dealing with the question through the board of censors, we will be guaranteed that it will not merely have a wider discretion, but that there will be an obligation imposed on it with strict criteria to ensure that the mischief that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr, Alton) has brought to the attention of nation will


be dealt with properly? There are many people who have very little faith in the manner in which the discretion is currently being exercised by the board.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the whole purpose of the package of measures which I am putting forward is that a more rigorous approach be taken. If he is patient for a moment or two, he will see how that package will achieve the objective which he and I share.
I have mentioned some of the criteria which we intend to designate. Of course, we shall want to consider carefully the criteria which will be set out on the face of the Act, but our aim is that the legislative framework governing the BBFC's discharge of its responsibilities should reflect the spirit of the criteria set out in the new clause introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. I shall certainly consult him and others with an interest before bringing forward a suitable amendment in another place.

Mr. Colvin: rose—

Mr. Howard: May I finish the point, as it deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)?
The presence of the statutory criteria will reinforce the more rigorous approach by the board which it has agreed to take. The criteria will also make it easier for the decisions of the board to be made the subject of judicial review. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will appreciate the significance of that point.
I believe that those three measures taken together constitute a substantial strengthening of the existing arrangements. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill for suggesting that the measures go a long way towards meeting his concerns. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and others, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), for their helpful and constructive approach to the question. It has enabled us to produce what I believe is a real improvement on the existing position and one which I hope will be welcomed by the House and by all those responsible, concerned members of the public who have made their views known to us.
Before I finish my speech I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).

Mr. Colvin: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way before concluding his speech. He will recall that during the passage of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which I had something to do with, a problem arose concerning proper powers for the police to enforce its proposed provisions. My right hon. and learned Friend has not so far said anything about powers of enforcement, and he is aware that, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, there are limitations on police powers of entry and search. Will he undertake to bear in mind the difficulties of enforcement when he considers the amendments that he proposes will be tabled in the other place? Without proper powers of enforcement, whatever is proposed in the legislation could prove ineffective.

Mr. Howard: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's argument about the importance of enforcement. He will appreciate that some of the measures already in the Bill

will help in that respect. In so far as they are not adequate, of course I undertake to reflect further on what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Beith: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: Yes, finally, and then I must finish.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has twice said that we have the most rigorous framework in Europe, or even in the western world. That may be true of the framework, but not of the classification. I hope that he will bear in mind the fact, which I hope will also be clear in the mind of the British Board of Film Classification, that it is fairly common, for example, for violent films to receive a higher age classification in Sweden than in Britain. Whether we have an effective framework will depend on the board's decisions, and the extent to which the procedures that the Home Secretary has described will influence its members.

Mr. Howard: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but he will understand that the purpose of the measures is to adopt a more rigorous approach, and I am confident that they will achieve that end.
The details of my proposal will of course be subject to full debate when the relevant provision returns to the House from another place. I therefore hope that, on the basis that I have outlined, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Tony Blair: I shall be very brief, because in any event we shall have a full debate on the matter when the Lords amendment returns to the House of Commons. I am pleased that we now have the basis for a sensible way forward, and that the Home Secretary has undertaken to consult us on the nature of the amendment to be tabled in the other place.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and to all the other hon. Members, including many of my hon. Friends, who have consistently raised the issue over time, and helped to bring the amendment forward. They did that not only because they responded to the huge and legitimate public concern but because they shared that concern, often on the basis of their own views and experience of the problem.
People are rightly sickened by some of the gratuitous and sadistic violence, often aimed at women and involving rape, portrayed in some videos that can and do find their way into the hands of children. We can argue about the nature of research, but surely it is common sense that a daily diet of such violence cannot be healthy for our children. Indeed, I would argue that it cannot be healthy for adults either, but they should be old enough to form their own judgments.
The House has a duty to protect children. Society has a duty to act through Parliament to protect children. Of course parents have the primary responsibility, and of course in legislating we do not in any sense attempt to diminish the responsibility of parents. But we also have a duty to act to protect children in circumstances in which they would not otherwise be protected.
It is precisely because we recognised the distinction between films being shown in cinemas, where access can be controlled, and videos for home viewing, that we passed the Video Recordings Act 1984. In order to legislate sensibly, we require, to put it briefly, a way through the following dilemma: how to prevent such sadistic and


gratuitously violent videos from reaching children, without, by some form of legislative accident, banning serious films that may move us, and indeed shock us, but which do so for a serious and genuine purpose.
The film that is often quoted is "Schindler's List". That example makes the distinction. I would not want my eight-year-old child to watch it—it would be deeply disturbing. However, it is not a film that any sensible people would want banned. That is therefore the terrain in which we must negotiate.
11 pm
By imposing a statutory obligation on the board to take the care and protection of children into account but leaving them with legitimate boundaries of discretion intact, we can meet the public concern while avoiding the pitfalls. That is a sensible way to proceed. That is what we are attempting to do. We now have the basis to proceed. We can add a proper amendment to the Bill—we may improve the Bill in the course of doing so—and show that we have listened attentively to public opinion and yet legislated with care.

Mr. Alton: On the basis of the speeches made this evening, and the interventions by many right hon. and hon. Members, I am happy to withdraw the amendment that is before the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 60

EVIDENCE IN CASES INVOLVING INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS

'Section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 shall be amended as follows:

(1) Subsection (1) shall commence with the words "subject to subsection 5".

(2) The following subsection shall be added:
(5) Where intercepted material shows that the person making the intercepted communication has committed an offence, evidence to prove the relevant content of intercepted material which may include a tape recording thereof shall be admissible to proceedings against that person for that offence.".'.—[Mr. Trimble.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this we may discuss the following: New Clause 61—Penalties for membership of proscribed organisations—
'(1) In section 2(2)(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 after the word "term", there shall be inserted "of not less than three years, and" and the words "or a fine or both" shall be omitted.
(2) Section 2(2)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 shall be repealed.
(3) In section 28(1) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 after the word "term", there shall be inserted the words "of not less than three years and" and all the words of the subsection after the words "ten years" shall be omitted.'.
New Clause 62—First hand hearsay—
'(1) Notwithstanding any rule of law or provision to the contrary, a statement made by a person in a document to a police officer or some other person charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders shall be admissible in a trial on indictment for a scheduled offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, or in any criminal proceedings related thereto, as evidence of any fact of which direct oral evidence by him would be admissible.

(2) For the purposes of this section a document includes an audio or video tape recording.'.
New clause 63—Investigations by the Royal Ulster Constabulary—
'. Section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 shall be amended as follows—
(1) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4)
(4) This section applies to any investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary

(a) into the existence of

(i) the resources of a proscribed organisation;
(ii) funds which may be applied or used for the commission of, or in furtherance of or in connection with acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland; or
(iii) the proceeds of the commission of such acts of terrorism or of activities engaged in furtherance of or in connection with such acts; or

(b) into the activities of an organisation concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism".

(2) In subsection (5) for the references to paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (4) there shall be substituted references to paragraph 4(a)(i) and 4(i)(ii) respectively.
(3) The following new subsection shall be added as subsection (6):
An authorised investigator appointed in relation to an investigation under paragraph (4)(b) of this section shall be a barrister or a solicitor of at least 10 years standing".
(4) Schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 shall be amended as follows
'(1) The following sub-paragraphs shall be added to paragraph 2—
(8) A notice in writing served under sub-paragraphs (1) or (2) of this paragraph may provide that the questions may be answered by a written answer or the information furnished as the case may be by post.
(9) A person required to appear before an authorised investigator may be accompanied by a solicitor".
(2) In paragraph (5) all the words after "paragraph 2" shall be omitted and there shall be inserted the words "may be admissible in evidence.".'.

Mr. Trimble: It is my task to refer to new clause 60, with which we are taking new clauses 61, 62 and 63. These new clauses relate primarily to anti-terrorism legislation and intend to strengthen that legislation. Obviously, they are framed with a view to the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland, but they have implications for the kingdom as a whole. Indeed, one of the interesting aspects of the Bill is that it extends to the whole of the United Kingdom a significant number of anti-terrorism provisions that hitherto have applied only to Northern Ireland. It is appropriate that that should be done.
Of the four new clauses, new clause 60 is general in its extent. While terrorism was part of the background to the thinking behind new clause 60, the new clause is not so limited. It is trying to make admissible in criminal proceedings the results of intercepted communications—what is referred in the United States to as wire-tap evidence. There is legislation that regulates the interception of communications—the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That Act provides a legal regime by which the authorities can be authorised to intercept or to have forms of electronic eavesdropping on communications that are being made.
Nothing in the new clause in any way changes the range of circumstances in which interceptions can take place; nothing in the new clause extends the extent to which there can be electronic surveillance or eavesdropping. I am prepared to concede that in some respects the new clause may not be happily drawn, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that this is a complex area, and it is not easy to draft provisions accurately.


The new clause seeks to enable wire-tap information, whether in the form of actual tapes or transcripts, to be admissible in court. Under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, intercepted material as defined in the Act is not admissible. Indeed, it is now clear—any doubt was removed by a House of Lords decision in November last year—that intercepted material is not admissible in court, except in limited circumstances which are not relevant to this debate. That is undesirable. In nearly all the countries where there are serious terrorist problems or organised crime, what we can call wire-tap evidence is admissible.
A clear example is to be found in the United States. That country, having decided to undertake its war against organised crime, introduced the RICO—racketeer-influenced corrupt organisations—legislation in 1970. We were told that this was the basis of amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. When the RICO code was introduced the United States also provided for wire-tap evidence to be admissible in court. Indeed, intercepted material has been the core of the prosecution evidence in many major cases against the Mafia and others engaged in organised crime.
I suggest that there is a clear parallel between organised crime, including Mafia-type activity, and terrorism. In any case, as there is organised crime relating to the drug problem in the rest of the United Kingdom, these provisions would be appropriate.
Hon. Members may recall a story in the Sunday Times of last weekend about the bombing of the Baltic Exchange —the St. Mary Axe incident. It appears that the prosecution case has collapsed as a result of witness intimidation. Where witness intimidation is rife, as in terrorist and drug situations, one has to consider what else can be done.
We have already changed the legislation concerning the admissibility of confessions. This has provided some scope, but there is still the problem that, because witnesses will not come forward, evidence is not forthcoming. One has to consider other opportunities for the production of evidence. Material intercepted as a result of electronic surveillance is an obvious example.
It is no secret that this new clause, together with the others that I shall propose, would make changes in the law that are currently being sought by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and I know that they are being considered by the Government. Part of the objective in bringing the provision forward is to ensure that the debate takes place in a public arena and to enable the Government to give us a report, if not a decision—I should like a decision—on the course and extent of their thinking.
Indeed, in recent weeks this matter has been dealt with to a considerable extent in the media. The Irish edition of The Sunday Times of 20 March contained an article from which, as it did not appear in the edition that circulates in England and Wales, I should like to quote a paragraph referring to various initiatives being promoted by the police with a view to dealing with the terrorist situation.
The paragraph says:
A second initiative is to allow Government prosecutors to use recordings from telephone tapping as evidence in court. MI5 and the RUC say senior IRA and Sinn Fein members could have been prosecuted if police had been allowed to use tapes against them. They cite one double murder last year, in which they knew who

planned the killings but were unable to act because the phone tap evidence was not admissible in court. Dozens of other terrorist prosecutions have also been dropped because intelligence material is not admissible in court.
I do not know whether that report is factually accurate. It is good that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is responsible for these matters is present. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to comment on the story's accuracy.
If it is correct, dozens of cases where prosecutions might have been brought successfully had this provision been in force are having to be dropped, and terrorists are given a further lease of liberty and opportunity to commit crimes—to kill and injure people and destroy property. For that reason alone, this matter deserves serious consideration. It applies not just to terrorism but to all organised crime, especially in drugs.
According to the report from which I have quoted, both the RUC and the Security Service—MI5—want this provision. Other press reports—I refer to a Sunday Times story of 27 March—say that the Association of Chief Police Officers, the customs people and the Home Office oppose it.
I think that we are entitled to know why that is. I do not know why, although I can think of some possible reasons. There may be fear or concern about whether the tapes could be doctored or interfered with. That is a possibility, but we have the technology to enable us to tell whether that has occurred to a certain extent. The court can decide whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to proceed.
Another reason given for fearing that it might not be wise to admit such evidence—it is said that this reason has been put forward by the customs and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and the Minister can say whether that is accurate—is that it might disclose to criminals the extent to which the interception of communications is taking place. It has been suggested that interception is now extremely widespread, and if the material were admissible in court it would alert the criminals.
I think that that argument is quite misconceived. It is silly to suggest that those involved in organised crime and terrorism are not aware of that possibility. They are of course aware of it. They know that the interception of communications is possible and—I dare say—they may have a better idea than any of us on the Back Benches of the extent to which interception takes place. They are probably more familiar with the technology for the interception of communications. I do not think that the argument holds water.
In any event, the new clause imposes no obligation to disclose material. We are not saying that those involved must use wire-tap evidence in all cases, and it can be used as it is at present. Wire taps are used to intercept criminals, and other evidence which is obtained can be used. Those involved in organised crime are well aware of the extent of wire tapping.
Members of my party—and I personally—have reason to know that it is quite extensive. I remember several years ago when the telephone exchange at our party headquarters in Glengall street suddenly went on fire. Some persons were for some reason pumping so much extra energy into the telephone wires that the exchange went on fire.
I also remember one occasion in 1986 when my telephone blew up at the wall socket. There was a bang and a wisp of smoke, and I got a telephone engineer out to examine and repair it. I asked what had happened to my


telephone, and was told that there must have been a sudden surge of power on the line. I asked what could have caused that, and I was told that it could have been something like a lightning strike. Does that mean, I asked, that it was a special lightning strike which hit only my telephone wire and nobody else's? The telephone engineer shrugged, smiled and walked on.
It was probably an attempt by the Northern Ireland Office to discover what my party was doing with regard to our opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement in -1986. That, of course, would not have been within the terms of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Any bugging of the Ulster Unionist party's telephone exchange would not have been within the terms of the Act, either. That is a mystery which we will leave to another day.
Those two incidents merely show that people know that the practice is widespread. The argument that making such evidence admissible in court would alert people to the possibility simply does not hold water.
Another factor which makes it necessary to consider such a clause stems from the House of Lords decision which I mentioned earlier in the case of the Queen v. Stephen Preston, on which their Lordships delivered judgment on 4 November. That case showed that there is a serious dilemma in the matter. In recent years, the law on the disclosure of information to the defence has developed considerably. There are considerable obligations on the Crown to make sure that any unused material which might assist the defence is disclosed.
Many of the laws have been developed with particular regard to the Ward case, and to the other cases in which miscarriages of justice have occurred recently. A tension between those laws and the provision in the Interception of Communications Act preventing disclosure came to light interestingly in the Preston case.
In that case, it was clear that the authorities became aware of the drug smuggling operation as a result of electronic surveillance. On the basis of the surveillance, they intercepted the consignment of drugs—or the money involved—and persons dealing with it. The accused, Preston, argued that he was acting under duress, and that the telephone conversations that had been intercepted would have proved that. Relying on the Ward case, among others, he tried to compel disclosure of the intercepted communications to assist his defence. The Attorney-General instructed prosecuting counsel that they were not to disclose the material concerned, and were not even to inquire into it.
11.15 pm
In an interesting passage in their judgment—it is only a couple of sentences, Madam Deputy Speaker—referring to the Attorney-General's argument that there could be no disclosure of the wire-tap evidence even if it would assist the defence, their Lordships said:
If the Attorney-General is right, it must follow that, even if the contents of the intercept would clearly demonstrate to prosecuting counsel that the accused person is innocent, he must be kept in ignorance of it, and in the interests of secrecy left to press unwittingly for an unjust conviction. My Lords, this is raison d'état indeed, and I would not hold it to be the law of England unless compelled to do so. I find no such compulsion in the Attorney-General's advice, for even if it gave a sound reason for refusing disclosure to the defence … the logic cannot be transferred to the supply of material, admissible or otherwise, to prosecuting counsel. If this too is to be withheld, a justification must be found elsewhere.

Some hon. Members might find in that sentence an echo of another inquiry that is taking place, and of other recent cases.
Their Lordships went on to find that, because of the express terms of the Interception of Communications Act, there was a justification elsewhere.
I find the tenor of the earlier part of the quotation interesting, as it shows that their Lordships consider that withholding that information, where it might assist the defence, is in principle objectionable. I should have thought that, for that reason alone, and quite apart from the advantages that it might give the prosecution, the Government must consider carefully whether intercepted material should be made available and be admissible in proceedings.
I am prepared to concede that the drafting of the new clause may not be ideal, but an important issue is involved. It will greatly strengthen the security forces in Northern Ireland when dealing with terrorist operations, as well as those in England and Wales—perhaps I should say, especially those in England and Wales, because terrorist operations there must depend to some extent on communications with the bases in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, so the interception of communications would be especially useful, and might enable the prosecution of terrorists.
The interception of communications would also be useful when dealing with organised crime and drugs, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider the matter.
New clause 61 would increase the penalties for membership of proscribed organisations. That offence has been on the statute book for a long time, but it is rarely used. Why is that the case? Very often, it is used as a back-up offence—after someone has been charged with a series of specific offences, the sweeper of membership is added. I am told that, during the past three years, there have been no summary charges, and only four on indictment, where membership is the only charge laid. In those four cases, one was acquitted and three were convicted but received suspended sentences. That cannot be right.
Membership of a proscribed organisation must be a serious offence. It cannot be caused accidentally. Joining is a very deliberate act and cannot be done inadvertently. I understand that proscribed organisations all have elaborate induction ceremonies for members—swearing in and all the rest—so joining is a very deliberate act; and because of the crimes and offences that terrorist organisations have committed, joining such an organisation should not be treated lightly.
I cannot imagine how it is possible, or how a court could consider it appropriate, for this to be a matter for which there should only be a suspended sentence. That is why, in this new clause, the minimum sentence is prescribed within the terms, and the existing maximum retained. It would be worth the authorities looking more seriously at this offence. I am sure that there are cases in which it may be difficult to prove that a person has committed a specific offence, a particular shooting or a particular bombing, yet it would be possible to assemble material to show that such a person was a member of a proscribed organisation.
We can think, perhaps, of some of the godfathers who are particularly well known, of whose membership of a proscribed organisation nobody in his right mind has any doubt. Let us consider, for example, the case of Mr. Martin


McGuinness. For many years, Mr. McGuinness was quite happy to have newspapers refer to him as chief of staff of the IRA and as a member of the IRA's army council.
He is now a little bit reluctant about it, because my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has taken to naming him repeatedly in this respect, and Mr. McGuinness is now pretending that he is not such a member; but, in view of his past conduct, the statements that he has made and the statements that he has allowed to be made about his membership, I would have thought that there would be no difficulty in laying the charge of membership and prosecuting it successfully.
I am amazed that it has not been done. When we consider the material that was disclosed in the television programmes "The Cook Report" about that individual, it is amazing that nothing has happened. It is scarcely surprising that rumours abound in Northern Ireland that the Northern Ireland Office has intervened to prevent police action against Mr. McGuinness and that this is the only reason why action has not been taken. But that is perhaps an individual case that it would be inappropriate to pursue at any length at this stage. My point is that membership offences should be taken more seriously and carry more effective penalties.
New clause 62 deals with what is called "first hand hearsay". When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister of State, Home Office referred, quite rightly, to the fact that the Royal Commission had recommended that this issue be looked at by the Law Commission, and this recommendation is itself a recognition that in many respects the hearsay rules are outmoded.
They have been largely discarded in civil cases, but I do not think that the reference by the Royal Commission to a reconsideration of the matter is a good enough reason for not proceeding with new clause 62. New clause 62 applies only to the Diplock courts—in other words, the non-jury courts dealing with scheduled offences in Northern Ireland. For that there is no need to wait for a Law Commission recommendation. How long will the Law Commission take? It is not a body noted for its speed of action. This is something that we could deal with now.
It is particularly appropriate to deal with it in Diplock courts, because there is no jury there, just as in civil cases there is no jury. Because of the absence of a jury in civil cases, Governments have felt quite happy to modify considerably the hearsay rule so that first-hand hearsay is admissible. I think that there is an argument for introducing it into the non-jury Diplock courts too.
It is important that this provision be passed, so that first-hand hearsay would be admissible. I understand that there is a large number of cases in which persons being questioned by the police are happy to name, while being questioned, other persons involved in a terrorist incident —their accomplices or whatever—but will not give evidence to that effect in court, with the result that the accomplices cannot then be proceeded against in court.
However, if first-hand hearsay were admissible, the police officers who conducted the questioning could themselves give evidence to the effect that X, when questioned, named A, B and C as his accomplices—or, as is so often the case, as the persons who instructed him to carry out the offences or the persons who planned them.
The people who are escaping from justice because we do not admit first-hand hearsay are very often the

organisers and planners of terrorist offences, the commanders, whereas it is the foot soldiers who are being caught. It should be the other way round.
That brings me to new clause 63, which is specifically directed to the godfathers—the commanders who are going free, whom we know are involved in directing terrorist organisations, who have been doing so for decades and who remain at liberty. The law currently does not touch them.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on instigating and moving those important clauses. Will he, however, confirm that the clauses were drawn together in consultation with the Royal Ulster Constabulary? It is to be hoped that the Government will therefore pay extra attention to his remarks.

Mr. Trimble: I am happy to confirm what the hon. Lady has said. She is right to remind me that new clauses 61, 62 and 63 were tabled as a result of consultation with the RUC, and that they embody the changes in the present form that the RUC desires.
New clause 63 is directed especially at the commanders of terrorist organisations—the persons who direct them. I was interested to note that, when we discussed the subject in Committee, the Minister of State said:
the increasing ability of a category of offenders, or a criminal organisation, to exploit the relevant aspect of the law to its own ends and to cause intense public suffering and hardship without fear of punishment can justify exceptional measures to rectify the balance in the interests of justice."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 March 1994; c. 1092.]
I focus on the phrase
can justify exceptional measures to rectify the balance".
New clause 63 is one such measure. What the Minister said in Committee is an argument in favour of the new clause.
I should like hon. Members to appreciate that the new clause builds on existing provisions of the Emergency Provisions Act 1991. Under that Act, authorised investigators can be appointed to inquire into the funds of a proscribed organisation and the proceeds of the commission of terrorist acts. Those authorised investigators can require persons to answer questions or to furnish information.
As the law stands under the 1991 Act, failure to answer those questions and failure to supply that information is an offence carrying with it a sentence of up to five years imprisonment, so we already have on the statute book provisions which direct that failure to answer questions or to supply information is an offence. That has made serious inroads into what is called the right of silence with respect to the financial aspects of terrorism.
New clause 63 would extend the effect of those existing provisions to cover the more serious offence of directing terrorist organisations. It would bring the godfathers of terrorism into focus so far as the legislation is concerned. It does not create a new exception; it takes an existing exception which is on the statute book, and extends it.
It is not a dangerous extension or a new fundamental provision, as was said in Committee; it is an existing provision, which the Government themselves have put on the statute book, and which the Government are currently using. Authorised investigators are being appointed. They are requiring people to furnish information, and that requirement carries with it the penalty of five years imprisonment if they fail to do so.


I cannot see the justification for saying that it is all right to require people to answer questions under pain of imprisonment about terrorist funding without requiring them, under the same penalty, to answer questions about directing terrorist organisations.
This issue was referred to in an article by Patrick Wintour which appeared in the Guardian on, I think, 11 March. I do not know whether the information is accurate, and perhaps the Minister will confirm it. The article states:
So far, the Government has rejected outright the proposal that it should be an offence to refuse to talk during an interview, but ministers have said that they are still consulting with the RUC about giving greater powers to the authorised investigators and to the admissibility of their evidence.
I will be interested to hear whether the Minister can confirm the accuracy of that statement.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I admire the hon. Gentleman's brave speech; it is most courageous. But I ask him to pause on the question of hearsay evidence, because anybody can say that someone said something which they did not say.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. Indeed, it enables me to draw attention to the fact that the new clause provides that tape recordings of interviews would be admissible in this context, which would provide proof without giving rise to the problems mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman. But that point arises in new clause 62, and I want to return to new clause 63.
In Committee, the Minister said, as part of his reason for not proceeding further, that more research had to be carried out and that time was needed to take soundings. I would like to know what further research and soundings are necessary. Are the soundings being confined to those in Northern Ireland who would have to operate such provisions, or are they being taken on a wider scale and involving people outside Northern Ireland?
When we discussed these matters last year—I raised similar provisions in June during debate on last year's Criminal Justice Bill—on 22 June in Committee, the Minister said that the proposals were a bit premature. On Report on 29 June last year, I was assured that "full and urgent consideration" had been given, and on 1 March this year, in Committee, that had become "still under active consideration".
Will the Government place a term on that consideration? As they have extended it now, can they tell us how long that consideration will continue? Or will we be making the same provisions in next year's Criminal Justice Bill? I assure the Minister that I have the persistence—and I know the Royal Ulster Constabulary has the persistence —to pursue this matter further. I think that it is about time that we received a comprehensive answer from the Government on this issue.
As the Minister knows, the issues go back to the press conference called by the Chief Constable of the RUC on 27 May 1993. On that occasion, he listed a number of what he considered to be desirable changes in the law. When I consulted the RUC about these proposals at the end of last year, I was told that the RUC had a shopping list—if I can use that phrase—of eight measures. Of those eight measures, one has been accepted by the Government in response to an amendment I put down in Committee on the

Bill, concerning plucked hair samples suitable for DNA analysis. I acknowledge that that was an important move on the part of the Government.
That is just one of the eight measures on the RUC shopping list. Another three are in the new clauses, dealing with authorised investigators, first-hand hearsay, and the admissibility of intercepted communications.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Is it the opinion of my hon. Friend that it is because of the Government's reluctance to introduce these measures that the Chief Constable has announced that it is most unlikely that there will be any cessation of violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland for at least three years?

Mr. Trimble: I can well believe that. If these are measures which the Chief Constable believes are necessary, if they are not put into effect it must obviously follow that the effectiveness of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in fighting terrorism is thereby diminished and the prospects of success are likewise diminished. It leads inevitably to the conclusion that the prospects of relieving the community of the scourge of terrorism are being diminished by Government's inactivity and their inability to make up their mind about these matters.
One measure on the RUC shopping list has been accepted, three are in the new clauses, and there are four others about which amendments have not been tabled. They concern matters such as proven cases of possession relating to the burden of proof in certain cases, and to previous conviction in others. Although those may not be important matters, the last measure is important. It concerns the need for a statutory scheme to protect and encourage witnesses. The story in last week's Sunday Times, to which I referred at the outset, reinforces the need for such a scheme. It is important to proceed with that measure as well.
Action on those matters is needed, particularly in the light of the IRA's clear rejection of the opportunity offered by the Government in the Downing Street declaration. One wonders whether that declaration and the manoeuvres in which the Government have been engaged are part of the reason why only the least important matter on the RUC's shopping list has been accepted while the important matters are being kept on the long finger. Is that why we are still waiting? Is that why Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to take measures that will upset the godfathers of Sinn Fein IRA?
Some of my friends attended the conference of the Friends of the Union in Cambridge on Friday night, when they heard the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), boast that the United Kingdom's anti-terrorist legislation was the "envy of the world". I am not sure whether I have quoted him correctly, as my comments on the matter are as a result of hearsay, but there is no doubt that the Minister made that boast.
What a pitiful thing to say. To claim that our anti-terrorist legislation is the envy of the world is rubbish. Look at western Europe—Spain, France, Germany and Italy. Each of those countries has been more successful in dealing with terrorism and organised crime than the United Kingdom. We are not the envy of the rest of Europe. If anything, we are the worst.
It is a bitter pill to have to stand here and say that we should learn from how Italy has handled such matters, but


we should. New clause 63, with its provision for authorised investigators, would reproduce something similar to the examining magistrates who have been so successful in dealing with the Mafia. That is part of the model on which the RUC has based those provisions. It has looked at why European countries have succeeded where we have failed, and the Government should be big enough to follow that example.

Mr. Maclean: I am pleased to respond to new clauses 60 and 61. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), will be keen to respond to new clauses 62 and 63, which relate specifically to Northern Ireland.
I am mindful of the wish of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to ensure that all possible steps are taken to prosecute criminals, including those guilty of terrorist offences. However, I am not persuaded that a case has been made that a significant number of prosecutions are being lost because of the inadmissibility of intercepted material as evidence.
The Interception of Communications Commissioner has cited statistics to demonstrate that interception has been successfully used covertly to lay the ground for the gathering of material that can be used in evidence. It has enabled the police or customs to be in the right place to catch criminals red handed. For example, in his report for 1989, he says:
just under 50 per cent. of all warrants issued at the request of the police have resulted directly or indirectly in arrests. On any view, this must be regarded as a satisfactory success rate for interception as a means of combating serious crime.
Were the current protection afforded by sections 6 and 9 to the product and techniques of interception to be removed, there would be no certainty that that record could be maintained. If the value of that source of intelligence were diminished by disclosure of techniques in the courts, the number of successful prosecutions could even fall.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government keep that matter under review, recognising, not least, the special circumstances that apply in Northern Ireland. But the new clause, like the Act itself, extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. In that context, I am not persuaded that the case for change has been made. I have listened carefully to the points made by the hon. Gentleman and hope that he will not put the new clause to the vote.

Mr. Trimble: Does the figure of 50 per cent. of intercepts leading to successful prosecutions relate only to events in England and Wales or does it also include intercepts in Northern Ireland? What is the percentage there? Does the House of Lords decision in the Preston case have any implications for the legislation?

Mr. Maclean: On the number of cases, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find it acceptable if I write to him with the details.
The reasoned judgment of the House of Lords on Regina v. Preston has endorsed both the Crown's interpretation of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and its practice under it in relation to warrants used for the prevention or detection of serious crime. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that response helpful.
On new clause 61, except in the case of murder—where the mandatory life sentence reflects the unique wickedness

of deliberately taking another person's life—the Government are not in favour of introducing minimum sentences. We do not think that minimum sentences would help the courts to sentence justly in the wide variety of cases that come before them.
A minimum sentence must be low enough to allow the courts to make allowance for cases where there are exceptional mitigating circumstances. But setting a low minimum sentence is not only fairly pointless; it can also give the public a false impression of how seriously the authorities view the offence. If the minimum sentence were set too high, there would be a risk that some offenders would be acquitted. That could happen either because the punishment appears excessive when extenuating circumstances are taken into account or, as can and has happened, because a jury is unwilling to convict for a particular offence as it believes that the punishment prescribed by law is too severe, even in the absence of extenuating circumstances.
For those reasons, it would be wrong to depart from our long-established policy on the subject, even where, as in this instance, we, too, regard the offence as serious. I hope that, in view of those comments, the hon. Gentleman will not wish to push new clause 61 to a Division. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office will be able to respond to new clauses 62 and 63.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has already sought to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 by tabling similar new clauses in Committee. Those new clauses were ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I shall not, therefore, seek to give all those explanations in detail, but shall deal with them as swiftly as I can.
New clause 62 would allow hearsay evidence to be admissible in the trial of terrorist-related crimes in Northern Ireland. There must be a sound basis on which the court can satisfy itself that such evidence is reliable. There are a number of fundamental principles at stake.
First, there would be no recourse to cross-examination or any opportunity for the court to assess the demeanour of the maker of the statement in the witness box. Secondly, the evidence contained in the statement would not have been given on oath. Further, in the case of statements made by accomplices or by others involved in criminal activity, there are added grounds for excluding their untested and unsworn testimony. It is not hard to imagine the motives that such persons would have for implicating others maliciously. There is always the danger that mistakes might be made, either innocently or deliberately, by the person recording the statement.
It is not an easy issue. It requires careful consideration, with is precisely what has taken place. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is utterly committed to keeping the criminal law as effective as possible against terrorism by a process of continuing and careful review. We have concluded that the proposed change to the law in Northern Ireland would not be appropriate. It is obviously very important that the justice system should be seen to maintain its reputation for fairness.
Having looked long and hard at the Chief Constable's proposal, we have had to conclude that it does not conform to the minimum standards of fairness essential for any


system of justice. It is vital that the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland should not be tarnished by unfair procedures. We naturally consulted the Northern Ireland judiciary, and their views are consistent with the Government's approach. In those circumstances, I must ask for that new clause not to be pressed. The House has also debated new clause 63 more than once, and the hon. Gentleman said that he might bring it forward again. It would further limit the right of silence of those suspected of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland. As with the other new clause, fundamental principles must be taken into account.
The general right not to be prejudiced by refusing to answer questions about involvement in a criminal offence derives from the basic principle that in our system of justice, the burden of proof in a criminal case is placed firmly on the prosecution.
That points to the overriding need to treat any changes to that part of the law with great care and much seriousness. That matter is under detailed and careful consideration as part of a package of measures proposed by the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland last year. It would be in the best interests of the Northern Ireland criminal justice system and of the whole Northern Ireland community not to legislate in haste only to repent at leisure. It is a sensitive issue and achieving a balance is both vital and difficult. I therefore ask that new clause 63 should not be pressed.

Mr. Roger Stott: I find myself in a unique situation, in that I agree with the comments of both Ministers in respect of new clauses 61, 62 and 63 and the arguments that they advanced for rejecting them. The briefings that the Ministers were given by their civil servants are almost as good as those that I received, so I need not deploy further argument.
New clause 60, however, merits brief examination. Before I entered the House 21 years ago, I worked as a telephone engineer for what was then the Post Office and is now BT. Members of my union and my colleagues had to institute telephone tapping when the appropriate authority was given, so I am familiar with the technicalities.
Tapping a person's telephone or intercepting their mail should be done only in extreme circumstances, because it infringes the individual's civil liberties. A fine line should be drawn between action against potential terrorism and the corrosive effect on civil liberties of telephone tapping or mail interception.
I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and I could be persuaded that in certain circumstances, there might be reasons for tapping or interception. However, consistent with our arguments in respect of prevention of terrorism Act renewal orders and emergency provisions Acts, it is important that if evidence is gathered in a correct and proper manner, a warrant should be issued by a magistrate or another member of the judiciary. Ministers should not be given the power to tap a person's telephone on the basis suggested by the hon. Member for Upper Bann.
I do not know whether the Government are prepared to look at the matter again in another place in the light of what has been said. Provided that there are the safeguards that I have just described—for example, where there is sufficient

evidence—a magistrate or other judicial authority can give the authority for that telephone to be tapped. Extreme circumstances involving terrorism might well be a reason for so doing, but I stress that it must be done not by a Minister but by a judicial authority. If that is the case, I am prepared to listen to the arguments.

Mr. Trimble: I am interested in what the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), responding for the Opposition, said about regard to the new clause, but I suggest that he has misunderstood its extent. What he said was an acceptance that the interception of communications might be permissible in certain circumstances. The new clause was not relating to when the interception might take place. I can understand the safeguards that he mentioned about when it might.
The new clause was directed only towards the admissibility in evidence of interception that is taking place under existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman did not address that issue. I wish to underline that issue, because my argument was simply that if the interception is taking place, the material should be admissible. I am sorry to say that I do not agree with the views expressed by the Minister, but will not press the new clause on this occasion.
I now refer to the points that were made by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box while we are debating the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is usually a Home Office matter. That reflects accurately the fact that it is not a parochial English Bill, but a United Kingdom Bill. It is appropriate that he should attend. If some hon. Members in Committee who were complaining about the absence of Scottish Ministers on appropriate occasions were here this evening, they would be quick to draw the parallel. I am told they will be here tomorrow and may well plead this welcome precedent.
I am disappointed with what the Minister said about new clause 62. It seemed to be a clear rejection of the proposal. I was surprised at the terms on which he rejected it when one considers that the royal commission said that the issue should be looked at again, and when the clear implication of the royal commission's discussion is moving towards the admissibility of such evidence.
The terms on which the Minister rejected the new clause seemed to suggest that his mind is closed on the issue. Before reading out the brief that was given to him, he should have looked again at what the royal commission said and addressed clearly my point that we are dealing in a case of a non-jury trial. That issue is appropriate and should have been taken into consideration.
I am glad that new clause 63 is still under consideration and hope that its consideration will be completed before we come to next year's criminal justice Bill. Having said that, I have no desire to push these matters to a vote, because I do not wish the Government to vote against sensible measures that they will eventually have to adopt.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 66

TOUTING

'[].—(1) A person commits an offence if he—

(a) loiters or solicits in a street or public place, or
(b) solicits from a motor vehicle in a street or public place for the purpose of procuring a passenger for a hire and reward vehicle.



(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(3) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Arrestable Offence) at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted—
(h) an offence under section [] of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Touting from or for a vehicle).
(4) For the purposes of this section—
hire and reward vehicle" means a vehicle used or intended to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, whether or not licensed as such, other than a licensed taxi or public service vehicle;
licensed taxi" means—

(i) in relation to the City of London and Metropolitan Police District, a vehicle licensed under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, and
(ii) in relation to any other district in England and Wales, a vehicle licensed by the local authority for that district under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act or any similar enactment; and

public service vehicle" has the meaning given in section 1 of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981.'.—[Mr. Bendall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I declare that I represent the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association in the House; that interest is recorded in the Register of Members' interests.
For the first time tonight, we have the opportunity of putting right an injustice—something that I believe has been wrong for a very long time. Let me deal first with the reasons behind the new clause. First, it is true to say that it has received all-party support. There have been more than 70 signatures in support of it.
New clause 66 would do away with the injustice that has existed for a long time with regard to touting. Touting is illegal but it is a civil, not a criminal, offence. Following my discussions with the Minister for Transport in London, who is here tonight, I believe I can say that he is not unhappy with the new clause. From other discussions, I understand that the Home Office is also not unhappy with it.
There has been tremendous support for the new clause from various elements of the cab trade and elsewhere. For example, the graded private hire companies, the Metropolitan police, in the form of the Public Carriage Office, and the Consumers Association have all supported it with a view to seeing an end to the injustice and even abuse that often befalls people travelling in certain vehicles. Most important, the British Transport police have also been extremely concerned that they do not have the necessary powers to deal with the increasing violence and aggression against tourists of those plying for hire. Many of the problems occur outside stations and clubs where innocent people are often preyed on by those touting illegally for business. New clause 66 would outlaw the problem, just as prostitution and kerb crawling have been dealt with in the past.
In view of the signs that the Home Office and the Department of Transport have given me, I hope that, even if they are not over-happy with the wording of the new clause—I am not wedded to it—they will be able to give a firm undertaking that the principle will be accepted in another place. I should be happy to accept such an undertaking.
We have a unique opportunity to close the door against three major problems. First, we have the opportunity to

make women safer in hired vehicles. Many women have been raped or abused in such vehicles. Secondly, we have the opportunity to make hired vehicles safer. Many people do not realise that when they travel in them they are uninsured, which is a major worry. We also have the opportunity to help the black cab system, which is recognised as the finest in the world.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is looking at me; I am coming to the end of my remarks. Finally, we also have the opportunity to end the abuse of the social security system. Raids on stations have led to the discovery that many people who work in the mini-cab trade are claiming social security. Such people would be caught, which would save the taxpayer and the Exchequer a considerable amount of money. For those reasons, I hope that the House will accept new clause 66.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: My friend who moved the new clause has my complete support. Twenty years ago, when I was a member of Sheffield city council, I began to move in the same direction. It seemed wrong that people could pick up passengers without being insured, thereby putting those passengers at risk. One could not be sure about the quality of the vehicle or the driver or his safety as a person. I understand from what I have been told by the Minister that the new clause finds favour with the Government and, 20 years on, I feel satisfied that a wrong is about to be righted. If the Minister says that it is fine and that he will change the wording, I shall go to bed a much happier man. It is not very often that one makes a dream come true, but tonight we may well do just that. If the Minister nods his head now, I shall shut up and sit down.

Mr. Maclean: indicated assent.

Mr. Bermingham: He has nodded; we have done it; I thank my hon. Friends.

12 midnight

Mr. Maclean: The purpose of the new clause is the laudable one of getting rid of the problem of people touting for passengers in cars not licensed as taxis. It is a serious problem and one that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has seen for himself on the streets of some of our provincial cities as well as London.
There are two aspects to the problem. The most serious is the tout who preys on strangers and tourists, especially at our important stations and international airports. These men set out to fleece their victims. If they protest, passengers are likely to lose their luggage— if not worse. The police at London stations and at Heathrow struggle to deal with the problem in the present legal context.

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: Very briefly.

Mr. Enright: Will the Minister make it clear that, in talking about tourists, he is talking not merely about people from foreign countries but about people from my constituency who have been done by the very drivers to whom he refers when they have come to London?

Mr. Maclean: Clearly, a tourist is everyone else except ourselves when we are travelling.
The other aspect is in relation to circumstances in which touts who do not own the cars concerned offer the services


of minicabs or private hire vehicles in the street or in which the vehicle drivers offer their services outside pubs and clubs at closing time. The passenger who accepts a ride in those circumstances is at risk. By acting as an unlicensed taxi, the driver has almost certainly abrogated his insurance and if anything goes wrong, the passenger will have to rely on the good will of the insurance company or, failing that, the agreement between the Department of Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau. The vehicles in which they ride may not be up to the standard of a taxi and the driver may not know where he is going or the best way to get there.
We commend the principles behind the new clause, but before we can advise the House to accept it, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London needs to be sure that it will do all that it seeks to do and no more. My hon. Friend especially wants to ensure that touts at airports and railway stations would be caught and we may need to define the terms "street" and "public place" used in the clause to ensure that we catch them.
Representations have been made to us to the effect that, as drafted, the new clause could have an adverse effect on legitimately licensed private hire vehicles. Outside London, such vehicles usually carry signs identifying themselves for what they are. Their drivers could have problems under the present wording if they were parked at the roadside or were in a public place between jobs, especially if they were sitting in the car. How could they show that they were not loitering for the purposes of procuring a passenger, when they were carrying a sign proclaiming that they were available for hire—even though it is by telephone booking?
To cut out any more debate, I ask my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) if he will withdraw the new clause and discuss its contents with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London with a view to a more satisfactory clause being tabled in the other place, which would win wide support from both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Bendall: I am happy to do so as long as the new clause is accepted in principle. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As new clause 68 raises complex and difficult issues relating to religious belief, and as the Minister of State has kindly agreed to have a personal meeting with those seeking the protection of the new clause, I invite the House to agree that no hon. Member should seek to move it.

New Clause 69

PROHIBITION ON USE OF CELLS FROM EMBRYOS OR FOETUSES

'(1) The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 shall be amended as follows.

(2) After section 3 there shall be inserted the following section—

"Prohibition in connection with germ cells.
3A.—(1) No person shall, for the purpose of providing fertility services for any woman, use female germ cells taken or derived from an embryo or a foetus or use embryos created by using such cells.

(2) In this section—
'female germ cells' means cells of the female germ line and includes such cells at any stage of maturity and accordingly include eggs; and

'fertility services' means medical, surgical or obstetric services provided for the purpose of assisting women to carry children.

(3) In section 41(1)(a) (offences under the Act) after the words "section 3(2)" there shall be inserted ", 3A".'.— [Dame Jill Knight.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dame Jill Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Let me cheer my right hon. and hon. Friends with the news that I do not propose to weary the House with a lengthy speech. On 22 February, I was given leave to introduce a Bill to prohibit the use of eggs from aborted girl babies, eggs which would be fertilised in a test tube and inserted into women who wished to become pregnant. Neither my Bill nor the new clause does more than that.
The new clause would not in any way affect the research that is presently carried out using aborted babies. It has nothing to do with the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, mental handicap or anything else of that nature. It would not affect the usage of organs from cadavers. It is specific, narrow and necessary.
I hasten to explain that the eggs for fertilisation procedure is not yet possible, although I understand that eggs drawn from aborted mice have been used, and that within a reasonable time the process will become possible with human beings.
The very suggestion has profoundly shocked hundreds of thousands of people all over Britain. Probably all hon. Members have had letters from their constituents expressing abhorrence. I have had enough to fill a filing cabinet. The unanimous view is that it is wrong to get rid of an unwanted baby to make a wanted one, and to have to admit to a child that his mother was never allowed even to be born, and that he can never know the first thing about her—how she looked, what her attributes were or what her medical history might have been had she been allowed to live. As a life continues, those factors can become important.
Such activities could herald the start of a lucrative market in aborted foetuses. Becoming pregnant so that the aborted foetus could be used in that way could be a brand new way of making money. All those possibilities are appalling, especially when there are millions of women of childbearing age walking around with perfectly normal, fully formed mature eggs that could be donated.
I want to send a message out—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Jill Knight: I promised to be awfully quick. I shall take only one intervention.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the hon. Lady had any discussions with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority? Some people believe that research would be affected. Is the hon. Lady absolutely sure that it would not?

Dame Jill Knight: Absolutely sure. I have had discussions with the authority. It knows what my intention is, and why.
I want to send a message to scientists that there is no point in spending any more time on research in that area, or in messing about with aborted mouse eggs, rat eggs or anything similar. The end product from using aborted human eggs for fertilisation purposes will simply not be


allowed to be used. There are occasions when the House must assert its authority and make it clear that scientists sometimes go too far.
The new clause would insert after section 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 a new section that would prohibit the use of
female germ cells"—
that definition includes immature foetal eggs—
taken or derived from an embryo or a foetus or
the use of
embryos created by using such cells",
to achieve a pregnancy.
The wording is most carefully drawn and the prohibition would apply to all current and all expected future techniques for treating infertility, such as in vitro fertilisation and transplants of foetal ovarian tissue—just that narrow point—or the use of early female germ cells from an embryo before the ovaries have developed.
The new clause is a catch-all, intended to stop what I have described as an abhorrent practice, and I am assured that it will do what it is intended to do. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, with whom I have talked at length on the subject. She and the officers from her Department have helped and guided me through a river of procedural rocks and currents to reach the shore of my intention, and only that narrow shore. I can assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there is no intention to do anything more than that. I am glad to have the support of the Government and many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I commend new clause 69 to the House.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) has spoken about her new clause with characteristic flair and commitment. I pay a warm tribute to her for the strength of feeling with which she addressed the House and her persistence in bringing forward the new clause. My hon. Friend has spoken for a great number of people both inside and outside the House. She expressed with clarity and sensitivity her repugnance at the notion of creating a life from an aborted foetus. Her speech hit a nerve. Like me, many people will recognise and share the feeling of revulsion that she described.
The House must face this important and emotionally charged issue today on a free vote. I shall vote in favour of the new clause. However, I shall take this opportunity briefly to set out some of the background and in particular to give a strong commendation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for its consultation document on donated ovarian tissue in embryo research and assisted conception. The Government acknowledge the sorrow and sadness that infertility can cause. Medical science has made great progress, and we can now bring hope to many couples through in vitro fertilisation treatment.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was set up under the Act—the first statutory authority in the world—to control and regulate embryo research and new fertility techniques. It has already established an excellent record. Its two annual reports and the consultation documents already under way have led to further improvements and safeguards, which means that public opinion and the concerns widely expressed are properly addressed.
Earlier this year, as a result of media reports of the developments in infertility research using eggs from aborted foetuses, the authority, with the Government's support, brought forward the consultation exercise that was promised in its 1993 annual report.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Can the Secretary of State tell the House what would be the effect of the new clause, if it is passed tonight, on the consultation process that is being carried out by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?

Mrs. Bottomley: If I may put tonight's debate in precisely that context, that was exactly the point that I was making when the hon. Lady intervened. Of course, there is a consultation process under way and I shall address that point in a moment.
It was a result of the concern on this matter that led the authority to bring forward its document entitled "Donated Ovarian Tissue in Embryo Research and Assisted Conception". I urge those—as the hon. Lady has obviously done—who are concerned with the moral and ethical questions raised by the medical and scientific advances to seek a copy of that document if they have not already done so and to let the authority have their views. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
When the document was published, I announced that the Government looked forward to receiving advice from the authority on those matters, after which we would consider what further action, if any, was required. As the procedures that the new clause seeks to ban are not yet possible, there are authoritative arguments—I imagine that that is the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) was seeking to make—for waiting until the consultation exercise ends before considering legislative controls.
So far, the authority has issued 19,000 copies of the consultation document and received in excess of 3,600 representations. The level of response led the authority to extend the consultation period until mid-July. The House will wish to consider whether we are justified in considering taking action on this issue before the general public and organisations have taken full advantage of the invitation to make their views known. Hon. Members will wish to consider this matter when they are deciding whether to support my hon. Friend's new clause.
The authority's document does, of course, go much wider than the subject of the new clause. For instance, in addition to those aspects relating to eggs from foetuses, the authority is seeking comments on whether ovarian tissue or eggs from live donors or from cadavers should be used in infertility research or treatment. The document also pays special attention to the important area of consent. Informed consent is an essential part of existing egg and sperm donation programmes. However, consent in relation to the donation of ovarian tissue from foetuses or from girls who die in childhood raise altogether different considerations.

Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend may recall that some years ago she and I discussed this matter in the context of the whole question of embryology. Does she not, while supporting the aim of my hon. Friend's new clause, agree that it would have been far better had we set out a


programme to ensure that research of this sort was not continued? Surely it would be better to impose greater restrictions.

Mrs. Bottomley: On the contrary, I think that the work of the authority has demonstrated precisely why that legislation was so important. In several areas—for example, sex selection and some aspects of cloning—the authority has issued consultation documents and, as a result, has decided not to license centres taking forward work of that sort. I believe that it has been a model of socially enlightened research and legislation, and one that many countries in other parts of the world wish to follow.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), in her closing remarks, said that her new clause was supported by the Government. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we shall have a free vote and that the Government have supported the consultation exercise being carried out by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?

Mrs. Bottomley: I should like to clarify that point My hon. Friend received assistance from my Department to ensure that her new clause would achieve the purpose that she intended. So far as the Government are concerned, however, there will be a free vote.
I hope that I have set out clearly the matters that must be considered. Many people feel strongly about this issue, and the authority has a consultation exercise under way. Whatever the outcome of our debate tonight, the other issues to which I have referred need to be considered b:y the Government. We shall undertake this consideration when we have the benefit of the authority's full advice.
We may recoil at the thought of a life being created in the circumstances that my hon Friend has described. As I said, some people may consider that the right course is to await the outcome of the HFEA's consultation exercise so that the issues can be considered in a wider context. All, I believe, will agree that there are serious ethical, legal and social issues involved. It is entirely appropriate that today's debate will be concluded with a free vote. The Government will abide by the will of Parliament.

Mr. David Blunkett: I—like all other hon. Members, I imagine—share the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). The Secretary of State has just made an admirable case for awaiting completion of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's consultation process. We should not be debating such an important and sensitive issue in the context of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and at this time of night. It is now 20 minutes past midnight, and hon. Members are not in a position to express the genuine concerns of all sides.
This is the worst way of legislating. It is the worst use of Parliament. It is reactive and emotive, and in some ways the debate is ill-informed. That is why, during a debate on the health service on 20 January, I asked the Secretary of State to consult her colleagues about the provision of adequate Government time to enable us to address the wider issues that had arisen over Christmas and the new year, only one of which we are addressing in the debate on this new clause.
Subsequently, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) and I met the Human Fertilisation

and Embryology Authority and discussed—as the hon. Member for Edgbaston must have done—its concern that a genuine consultation process which was extended to 15 July would be pre-empted on one issue on a Bill which has nothing to do with either health or embryology or with the issues which we debated at length in 1990 simply to satisfy an understandable but nevertheless isolated issue which we are addressing this evening.
The 1990 Act—I spoke in that debate—was carefully considered by Parliament, and gave adequate powers to the embryology authority. It was explained to us that those powers would have been usable in dealing with the concerns of the hon. Member for Edgbaston. In any case, those powers would not need to be used for at least 10 years, and not in the immediate future. Scientific possibility would not make it possible for the fears and nightmares which people have expressed to come about for at least another decade.

Mr. Julian Brazier: On that very point, is the hon. Gentleman aware that a distinguished gathering of physicists and astronomers announced that putting a satellite into orbit would be impossible until the turn of century—just one year before sputnik was put into orbit? The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one issue is being taken in isolation here, but many Government Members feel that the issue should be addressed at the first possible moment, which this Bill provides.

Mr. Blunkett: I share the hon. Gentleman's wish that we should be able to address sensibly, carefully and non-emotively this very important issue, and those issues which were raised during Christmas and new year. Why have not the Secretary of State and her colleagues been prepared to make the time available at a rational and sensible time of day to debate the issues in that spirit?
Given that consent—as the Secretary of State described—cannot be given in this area, there are no fears regarding the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred in terms of scientific possibility being overturned.
The matter is very simple. Those on the Opposition Front Bench will not press for a vote on the issue tonight. We regret that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's efforts to provide a rational and sensible discussion and a debate on the issues in a way which enables us to come to much wider conclusions following its consultation period have been simply overridden.
Even at this late stage, I ask the hon. Member for Edgbaston—with the knowledge that she has the House behind her and that the Secretary of State is giving support—to withdraw the new clause to allow the consultation period to be concluded and the embryology authority to come back with a range of recommendations following that consultation period, and to allow the House to debate the matter at a rational time of day in a rational fashion. That surely is the way in which Parliament should work—consequent on it having established the authority, consequent on asking it to deliberate on the issues and consequent on it agreeing to extend its consultation period.
The Secretary of State made a clear and, I thought, sensible case for allowing that consultation period to conclude. We do not object to the intention of the new clause, but we sincerely worry about the process of Parliament which turns a Bill into a hybrid measure by


tagging on to it things which have not been debated in a way which we feel to be appropriate. We ask the hon. Member for Edgbaston to consider the issues in that light.

Mr. Thurnham: It is unfortunate that the House is being asked at this late hour to consider this issue in this Bill. It is inappropriate that we should be considering it now. It is wrong, and it would be a mistake for the House to pass new clause 69.
Many people oppose the new clause, such as PROGRESS—the Campaign for Research into Human Reproduction—and the Royal College of Nursing, which has pointed out that it would be rash and that Parliament would lack credibility if it rushed a decision through now, pre-empting the consultation process that the Government set up. It seems totally wrong for the Government to allow a decision to be taken now when they have only just set up that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) recently introduced a ten-minute Bill and I am sorry that I was not able to be present. She advanced a number of arguments and I shall take a few minutes of the House's time to consider them. She said that she felt that it was repugnant to use foetal tissue in such a way, but surely it cannot be worse to use a miscarried foetus to create life than to incinerate it. That is the choice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston went on to say that there was a shortage of donors, but that millions of people could donate. They do not do so. Professor Brian Lieberman in Manchester set up the National Egg and Embryo Donation Society because of the shortage that exists. Only a handful of donors are able to provide eggs for research and treatment, which is why it is so important for us to consider any other possibilities.
My hon. Friend warned the House that women might be bribed to have late abortions. As I shall explain, there is no danger of that happening because, if it were possible to use foetal tissue, as many as 7 million eggs are available in one foetus, which would resolve all the present shortage problems. The full process is not understood, but it is known that, at the fifth month of pregnancy, about 7 million eggs are present. The number falls to 1 million at birth and 400,000 at puberty and only about 400 eggs go on to reach maturity, which is why there is the present shortage. It could be alleviated if new processes were discovered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston went on to discuss a market in other organs, but that was considered by the Polkinghorne report, which sensibly advised that hospital ethical committees could consider the issues case by case and decide what was sensible and what should be done in the best interests of patients—for instance, by using foetal tissue to treat Parkinson's disease and so forth.
My hon. Friend also said that it would be wrong for a child to be born if the genetic mother had died, but it is not uncommon for a child to be born when the father has died. There is also evidence to show that, if DNA tests were taken, they would prove that one fifth of the population do not have the father shown on the birth certificate.
My hon. Friend also said that consent would not be given in the way in which it has been laid down by Parliament and I agree. That is a valid argument, which is why very little use would be made of the treatment if it

were available. She queried the legality of using foetuses, but if it were illegal the Government would not support a consultation process. Clearly, it is legal as the law stands.
She also queried whether foetal eggs could be used for fertilisation. The Royal College of Nursing has said that it thought that it would take about 10 or 20 years, and Peter Brinsden of Bourn Hall thought that it might be five or ten years. Clearly, it is a long way away and there is no need for the House to rush into any hasty legislation tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston finished introducing her ten-minute Bill by asking:
how can it be right that a matter of life and death … should be decided by a committee?"—[Official Report, 22 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 152.]
The right place for such matters to be considered is case by case, by the ethics committees in each hospital.

Mr. David Wilshire: My hon. Friend will recall that I did my level best to help him to get the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 on the statute book. He says that there is time, but does he not accept that we ought to make it crystal clear that no research should be done in such a way, whether in five or 20 years? We should make it clear now that that is one step too far.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said that her clause would not stop research. The House can come to a decision about what might happen in this country, but it cannot decide matters in other countries, and all that this would mean is that the United Kingdom would lose its current lead. Louise Brown was the first test tube baby in the world to be born because this country has the lead; it would be very wrong of the House to approve legislation which would mean that our lead passed to other countries and, in extreme cases, people might have to go abroad for treatment that is unobtainable in this country.
For these reasons I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause and not put it before the House at this late hour. If she persists in putting it before the House, I urge hon. Members to oppose it.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I would like to take up a little of the House's time tonight in flying the flag for that excellent organisation the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It was established in 1990 to look into the regulation of all treatment and research centres involved in infertility treatment with donated eggs or sperm, storage of eggs, sperm or embryos and research on human embryos up to the limit of 14 days. The authority is doing an excellent job, and should be allowed to continue with the work that it has been asked to do.
Over the years, a great deal of work has been done on in vitro fertilisation, and we have seen a great improvement in the techniques being used. In 1987, fewer than one in 10 IVF attempts led to a live birth; today, the figure is nearer one in seven. Over 10,000 children have been born through IVF in the United Kingdom. That is 10,000 children who are wanted and loved, and who are growing into healthy and happy individuals. The problem is that IVF has proved so popular that there is a great shortage of eggs relative to the demand, and the HFEA has issued a consultation paper with three possible sources of ovarian tissue to keep up with the demand. [Interruption.]


One of them is the possibility which has sparked such a chorus of indignation: to use foetal ovaries from abortions, stillbirths or miscarriages. [Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Too many private conversations are going on. Nobody is obliged to be in the Chamber. If hon. Members are here, I expect them to listen to the hon. Member who has the floor.

Mrs. Campbell: I have had a great many letters on this, and many of the people who have written to me appear to believe, mistakenly, that it is a treatment which is available and which is being carried out now. We have heard already tonight that nothing could be further from the truth.
It is true that foetal ovaries have been transplanted to restore the fertility of sterile mice, but this technique is not remotely possible in human beings at present. The research required to solve all the potential problems would take at least 10 years to produce a technique which was both effective and acceptable in human beings. So even if research started today, another 10 years would elapse before we could use such a technique. No research is currently going on in the United Kingdom on this issue.
So I must ask: why the hurry? Why the rush to make new legislation now, immediately, about something which is at least 10 years away? Why not wait until the excellent HFEA has finished its public consultation in mid-July and published its report a month later? When we set up a body to consider the issues, why do we find it necessary to rush in and prevent it from completing its job?
Like many other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, I very much hope that the conclusion of the HFEA will be to recommend a ban on the use of foetal eggs. The very idea causes me some revulsion, but I think that it is important that the subject is properly considered—not simply debated for one hour very late at night, with tired Members on both sides of the House, who are ill informed and perhaps have a great many other issues on their minds on that subject.
I shall consider one further and final point. What is the effect of not allowing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to finish its job? I know that, if I were a member of that authority, I would be very upset if, after I had been asked to consult on what is obviously a very controversial issue, and as soon as the general public were being consulted on that issue, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) had jumped in and tried to pass premature legislation.
I believe that the effect on that organisation will be that it will not in future wish to consult about anything that is remotely controversial. It will be forced to lie low, play safe and not test public opinion on those very important moral issues, as the HFEA was intended to do.
This is one of the few occasions when, through another organisation, we are asking the general public their views about what is acceptable to them. Do we not trust them to arrive at the right conclusion? Why do we want to interfere with the natural course of public consultation and debate? This is the wrong time to debate the subject, and in the Lobby tonight I shall vote against the new clause.

Mr. John Gunnell: When the Secretary of State has told us that about 3,000 people have responded to the consultation document, does my

hon. Friend consider that the House is showing contempt for those 3,000 people if it takes a decision before their views are heard and analysed?

Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. We have to consider the effect on those members of the public who bothered to write down their opinions and send them to the HFEA. It means that the House is, of necessity, riding over those opinions that have been expressed, and not allowing proper consideration of those issues.

Mr. Alton: Does the hon. Lady accept that the vast majority of those people who have written to the authority have registered their opposition to those repulsive procedures, and that therefore they will be delighted with the new clause that the hon. Lady has moved and would wish us to pass it tonight, and that there is therefore no need to delay on the grounds that she is advancing? Does she also consider it strange that the HFEA needed to consult on that issue at all?

Mrs. Campbell: I do not find it strange that the HFEA found it necessary to consult. I think that there is a problem, and the HFEA has named the option as one of a number for consideration, debate and consultation. I think that the argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is not valid, because it is important for us to know the result of the public consultation. In taking the step tonight, in trying to pre-empt the results of the public consultation process, we are prejudging the issue.
I have already said that my sympathies are with those people who wish the use of foetal eggs to be banned, and I have no doubts about that, but I want the issue to be properly discussed, I want it to be properly considered by an authority that has the resources, the information and the expertise to consider it, and I do not want it to be decided very late at night in the House of Commons at this point, before that consultation period is finished.
I reiterate that it will be at least 10 years before the treatment becomes even a remote possibility, so let us wait only a few more months to find out what public opinion and the HFEA advise us, instead of pushing headlong into a premature and hasty decision.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: With the indulgence of the House, this will be an extremely short contribution.
If we debate this measure, and indeed consult until the cows come home—as they say in the farming community—we should still reach the conclusion that it can never be right for a child to be born to a mother who herself was never born. It cannot be right for a child never to know what that mother looked like; for a child never to know what that mother's disposition would have been; or, in the event of medical complications later, never to know what that mother's medical condition would have been had that mother been born.
That is all we are discussing tonight. We do not need to wait for the completion of the consultation period; the broader issues can be debated and voted on at a later date. Tonight we are debating a simple narrow issue: should the House permit a child to be born to a mother who has never been born? The answer must be no. The vote must be yes in favour of the proposer, our hon. Friend the Member for


Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). It can never be right for a foetus to produce a child. I ask the House to support our hon. Friend on this side.

Dame Jill Knight: I will speak for only one or two moments. I will not concern myself with answering the arguments which hon. Members opposite have put forward; they are easy to answer, but it would take time. If the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) imagines that we in this House are not capable of discussing anything after 10 o'clock at night, she will have to learn better, because most hon. Members are well aware that we discuss and decide many things at this time of night.
I make one most important point. It is important for us to pass this new clause and say, here and now, that those

who are spending time and a great deal of money on research in this field may as well stop right now and spend the money on far more important things to do with the well-being of women and children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said many things which surprised and saddened me. But he ought to be ashamed—perhaps he will be ashamed in the morning—of saying that the House is only a committee. The House of Commons is a great deal more than a committee. If we think that we are merely members of a committee, we are not worthy of being here. I do not have the slightest intention of withdrawing the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill

New Clause 70

EXTENSION OF SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967 TO THE ARMED FORCES AND MERCHANT NAVY (No. 2)

'.—(1) Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (Homosexual acts in the Armed Forces) is repealed.

(2) In section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, subsection (5) (Homosexual acts in the Armed Forces) is repealed.

(3) Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (Homosexual acts on merchant ships) is repealed.

(4) In section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (homosexual offences), subsection (7)(d) and the word "or" preceding it, and subsection (8), (which together make provision about homosexual acts on merchant ships) are repealed.

(4) This section shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 82—Homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland—
'—(1) In the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, the following are revoked—

(a) in article 3(1) (homosexual acts in private), the words "and Article 5 (merchant seamen)"; and
(b) article 5 (homosexual acts on merchant ships).

(2) Article 3(4) of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in the armed forces) is revoked.
(3) This section, and the associated entry relating to the 1982 Order in Schedule 11, shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.
Amendment No. 35, in clause 131, page 103, line 19, at end insert—
'In Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), for "21" in both places where it occurs there is substituted "18".'.
Amendment No. 36, in clause 142, page 110, line 32, after '125,' insert '131,'.
Government amendment No. 184.
Amendment No. 122, in page 111, line 1, leave out 'Section 44 extends' and insert
'Sections 44 and (Homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland) extend'.
Amendment No. 123, in schedule 11, page 157, line 49, at end insert—


'S.I. 1982/1536 (NJ. 19).
The Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
In Article 3, in paragraph (1), the words "and Article 5 (merchant seamen)", and paragraph (4). Article 5.'.


Government amendment No. 133.

Mr. Maclennan: The new clause provides the Government with an opportunity to fulfil the undertaking that they gave in 1992 to decriminalise homosexuality in the armed forces and Merchant Navy.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am finding it extremely difficult to hear

what the hon. Gentleman is saying because of the noise. I know that you would want the House to be orderly so that we can hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. So that the House is clear about what is happening, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has now moved new clause 70 and has the Floor.

Mr. Maclennan: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised private homosexual acts between consenting adults over the age of 21 in England and Wales, but did not extend to the armed forces or the Merchant Navy. Further Acts decriminalising homosexuality in Northern Ireland and Scotland repeated that omission.
The Select Committee on the Armed Forces recommended in 1992 that the criminal law be the same for members of the armed forces and Merchant Navy as it is for civilians. It did not, however, recommend lifting the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. In the debate to which I have referred, in June 1992, the then Minister of State said:
the Select Committee on the Armed Forces did recommend that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should no longer constitute an offence under service law. That recommendation has been considered very carefully by the service personnel authorities, and they and Ministers have concluded that the Select Committee's recommendation should be accepted … It is now the Government's view, following the advice of the Select Committee, that such criminal proceedings should no longer be brought. My Department has therefore accepted that the special provisions of section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Michael: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is immensely difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman, as it was the last time you expressed concern on the issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members beyond the Bar, who are not technically in the Chamber, carry on their conversations elsewhere?

Mr. Maclennan: The former Minister of State said:
My Department has therefore accepted that the special provisions of section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 should not apply in future. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been asked to implement the repeal of this part of the Act as soon as the legislative programme allows … I should like to make it clear that this is a sensible measure of decriminalisation, whose purpose is to tidy up the differences between military and civilian law. It is not intended to alter the present disciplinary climate of service life.
New clause 70 has been tabled to enable the Government to fulfil that undertaking. It does not seek to prevent the Army from disciplining individuals for conduct that may be a threat to discipline or good order relating to homosexual activity. Criminal prosecutions for gross misconduct of an indecent kind will still be possible under other armed forces legislation, as in civilian life. I commend the new clause to the House.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): All four Ministers at the Ministry of Defence support new clauses 70 and 82. Their purpose is to align with civilian law the legality or otherwise of actions by members of the armed forces and the Merchant Navy. Under current law, those engaging in homosexual activity that is legal in civilian law could be prosecuted


under service law. Clearly, that would be unfair, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed the House in June 1992 that the Government had accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill of 1991 that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should not be prosecuted under service law.
Since then, we have not been prosecuting in such circumstances. It remains our policy, however, that homosexual activity is not compatible with the special conditions under which service personnel live and work. Service personnel found to be homosexual or who engage in homosexual activity will continue to be discharged from the services. It would clearly be anomalous for the situation in the Merchant Navy to be different from that in the armed forces. There is general consensus in the shipping industry that section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 should be repealed, and the decision to do so was announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), on 16 December 1993.
The code of conduct for the Merchant Navy is being amended in consultation with the unions and employers. Now is an appropriate opportunity to enshrine in law our acceptance of the position and repeal the special provisions of section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967. It is also appropriate to amend the relevant section in article 3(4) of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 in relation to the law in Northern Ireland. I commend the new clauses to the House.

Ms Kate Hoey: I wish to speak to amendment No. 35, standing in my name and those of a large number of other hon. Members. Although we cannot take a decision on it tonight, I hope that the House will support amendment No. 35, which will bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with the decision taken by the House a short time ago to reduce the age of consent for homosexuals to 18. At present, under the law in Northern Ireland, the age is still 21. In the Republic of Ireland the age of consent is 17. I am sure that the House would not want homosexual people in Northern Ireland to suffer inequality under the law.
The amendment is a simple measure of equality that would bring the age of consent in Northern Ireland to 18 as in the rest of the United Kingdom. It would give young people, and people generally in Northern Ireland, the same rights as people in the rest of the UK. Will the Minister give his view on the matter? I hope that he will accept the amendment. If not, I hope that the House will vote on it tomorrow.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Hoey: Yes, I give way to one of the supporters of my amendment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If there is opposition to the amendment, I think that the House will want to vote on it. I hope that those hon. Members who feel as the hon. Lady and I do—that everyone in the UK should be treated in the same way—will try to ensure that there is an opportunity to vote on the matter on another day such as tomorrow.

Mr. Bill Walker: Can my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that if existing law is changed as a result of these amendments, anyone dismissed from the service under the existing legislation will not be able to appeal to the European Court and receive large sums of public money?

Mrs. Roche: I welcome the Minister's acceptance of new clause 82 in my name, but we continue to be disappointed that homosexual activity can still lead to dismissal. Anyone who saw the "Cutting Edge" television programme about able seaman Brett Bernell will know how disgraceful was his dismissal and treatment. In more enlightened times, and perhaps under a different Government, there may be a change of attitude.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 71

EXTENSION OF DEFINITION OF RAPE TO COVER MALE RAPE, ETC.

'.—(1) The Sexual Offences Act 1956 is amended as follows—

(a) in section 1(1) (rape), for "rape a woman" there is substituted "commit rape'; and
(b) in section 12 (buggery), after subsection (1) there is inserted—

(1A) This section does not apply where a man has anal intercourse with a woman or with another man who (in either case) at the time of the act does not consent to it.".

(2) Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (meaning of "rape" etc.) is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), after "consent to it" there is inserted "or has anal intercourse with a woman or with another man who (in either case) at the time of the act does not consent to it";
(b) in subsection (1)(b), after "she", in both places, there is inserted "or he";
(c) in subsection (2), for "a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse" there is substituted "a woman or a man was consenting to the act in question"; and
(d) after subsection (2) there is inserted—

(2A) In the following provisions of this Act, references to a woman include references to a man.

(3) This section, and the associated repeals in Schedule 11, shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.— [Mrs. Roche.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Roche: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: Amendment (a), before subsection (3), insert
'(2A) In subsection (3) of section 2 of the 1976 Act (restrictions on evidence at trials for rape, etc.) after the word "woman" there shall be inserted the words "or a man".
(2B) In subsection (1) of section 4 of the 1976 Act (anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases) after the word "woman" there shall be inserted the words "or a man".'.
New clause 78—Marital rape—
'.—(1) For section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Rape) there shall be substituted the following section—

Rape.

1.—(1) It is an offence for a man to commit rape.

(2) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and
(b) at that time he knows she does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether she consents to it.

(3) A man who induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband commits rape.
(4) Subsection (2) above applies for the purpose of any enactment.
(2) In sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Procuration of women to have unlawful sexual intercourse) the word "unlawful" shall be omitted.

(3) Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect.

(4) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 shall be amended in accordance with subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8) below.

(5) In section 4(1) (Anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases), at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "Subject, in the case of marital rape offence, to the modifications of this section made by section 4A of this Act,".

(6) After section 4, there shall be inserted the following section—

Anonymity of complainant and defendant in marital rape etc. cases.

4A.—(1) Section 4 of this Act shall have effect in the case of a marital rape offence with the following modifications.
(2) The prohibition in subsection (1) of the publication or other disclosure (except as authorised by a direction) of—

(a) the woman's name or address or a picture of her; and
(b) matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the woman;

shall apply in relation to the person against whom the allegation or accusation of the rape offence is made ('the man') as it applies to the woman, but shall continue in force for the duration of the woman's life only.
(3) Any direction in pursuance of that section may disapply the prohibition either in relation to the man and the woman or in relation to the man only (but not in relation to the woman only) and, where given in pursuance of an application, whether or not the application sought that form of direction.
(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the defence conferred by subsection (5A) on proof of the written consent of the woman to the appearance of matter of the description in question shall only be available on proof of the written consent of the woman and the man; and the exception in subsection (5B) on proof of unreasonable interference with the woman's peace or comfort applies also on proof of unreasonable interference with the man's peace or comfort.
(5) Where the man is convicted of the rape offence subsection (4) above does not apply as respects any time after the conviction.
(7) In section 7(2) (Definition of rape offence, etc, for purposes f the Act), in that definition—

(a) after the words "attempted rape", where they first occur, there shall be inserted the words "assault with intent to rape,"; and
(b) for the words "or attempted rape" there shall be substituted the words ", attempted rape or assault with intent to rape".

(8) In section 7(2), after the definition of "a rape offence" there shall be inserted the following—
 'a marital rape offence' means any of the following, namely, rape, attempted rape, assault with intent to rape and burglary with intent to rape where, at the time of the alleged offence, the victim and the person accused of the offence are married to each other;".

(9) In consequence of the foregoing amendments—
(a) in section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976—

(i) for the words "the preceding section" (wherever they occur) there shall be substituted the words "section 4 of this Act"; and
(ii) in subsection (5), for the words "of such matter as is mentioned in" there shall be substituted the words "such as to contravene";

(b) in section 6(5) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the words from "section" to the end there shall be substituted the words "sections 4 and 4A of the Sexual

Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (Anonymity in rape cases of complainant and, in marital rape cases, of complainant and defendant)"; and
(c) paragraph 66 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall cease to have effect.

(10) In section 80(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Exceptional compellability of accused's spouse) after paragraph (a), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(aa) the offence charged is a sexual offence against the wife of the accused; or
(a) in consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1) above in subsection (3) of that section—

(i) in subsection (3)(c), at the end, there shall be inserted the words "or of attempting to commit any offence falling within paragraph (aa) above.".
(ii) in subsection (7), for the words "subsection (3)(b)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (3)(aa) and (b)"

(11) Subject to subsection (12) below subsections (4) to (8) above shall not apply in relation to an allegation or accusation of an offence which is made before the commencement of this Act and subsection (10) above shall not apply in relation to any trial, or any proceedings before a magistrates' court as examining justices, which began before the commencement of this Act.

(12) Subsection (7) above shall not, in its application to sections 1(2), 2 and 3 of the Act of 1976, apply in relation to any trial, or any proceedings before a magistrates' court, which began before the commencement of this Act and shall not, in its application to sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1976, apply in relation to an allegation or accusation of an offence which is made before the commencement of this Act.'.

New clause 83—Aggravated sexual offences—
'.—(1) A person who commits an offence under section 1(1) of the Sexual Offence Act 1985 or section 22(1) or 30(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 shall be guilty of an aggravated offence if the person against whom that offence is committed is under the age of 16 years.
(2) A person who commits an aggravated offence under subsection (1) of this section shall be liable to double the penalty provided for such an offence if it had not been an aggravated offence.'.

New clause 84—Living on the earnings of prostitution of a person—
'In section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 for subsection (1) there is substituted the following subsection—
(1) It is an offence for a person knowingly to live wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution".'.

New clause 85—Procuration of a person to become a prostitute abroad—
For section 22(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 there is substituted the following section—
(1) It is an offence for a person—

(a) to procure a person to become, in any part of the world, a common prostitute; or,
(b) to procure a person to leave the United Kingdom, intending him or her to become an inmate of or frequent a brothel elsewhere; or,
(c) to procure a person to leave his or her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom intending him or her to become an inmate of or frequent a brothel in any part of the world for the purposes of prostitution.".'.

New clause 93—Meaning of rape—
'.—(1) In section 1(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 ("the 1976 Act")—

(a) the word "unlawful" is omitted; and
(b) the word "person" is substituted for the word "woman".

(2) In section I(1)(b) of the 1976 Act—
the words "that person" are substituted for the word "she" in both places where it occurs; and
(3) The following subsection is inserted after section 1(1)—" Notwithstanding section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, for the purposes of this Act, 'sexual intercourse' shall mean vaginal or anal penetration to any degree by any part of the assailant's body, or any object, and shall include non-consensual oral sex.".'.

Government amendments Nos. 43, 44 and amendments Nos. 49 to 51.

Mrs. Roche: This new clause is about equality and treating victims of crime equally. The maximum penalty for raping a woman is life imprisonment. Given the appalling nature of that crime and the trauma that it causes women, no one would argue that that is wrong. Yet male rape is not recognised in law. It is called buggery without consent, and carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years' imprisonment. If we want to act properly for victims of crime, we should do something about that legislative discrepancy.
Other countries, such as Canada and Ireland, have already amended their legislation. In Ireland, the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 extended the definition of rape to include male victims.
In this country, the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended as long ago as 1984 that the penalty for buggery without consent should be increased to life imprisonment. New clause 71 would achieve the same end as the CLRC hoped to achieve—but by changing the definition of rape rather than increasing the penalty for buggery. After all, men who are victims of rape know that that is exactly what they are—rape victims, and the victims of an appalling crime.
A change in the law would also reassure male rape victims that their plight is taken seriously. A breakdown of 62 men who were the victims of sexual abuse and who have attended the Wharfside clinic at St Mary's hospital in Paddington so far in 1994 showed that only seven of them —11 per cent.—had reported their assault to the police. A change in the law might encourage more men to report such crimes, so that the police can thoroughly investigate them.
The new clause will enable the law to take account of the needs of victims of crime, and I shall listen carefully to the Minister's remarks. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Maclean: In law, sexual assault—by whatever name it is called—is abhorrent. The fact that the word "rape" is reserved for a particular act should not belittle the suffering of the victims of other sexual offences, whether male or female.
New clauses 71 and 93 would raise the maximum penalty for certain sexual offences to life imprisonment. Because the penalty for indecent assault on a woman was increased from two to 10 years in 1985 and because we have now extended the power of the Attorney-General to refer unduly lenient sentences on indecent assault, I do not believe that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, there will be any difficulty in ensuring that offenders are properly punished. The same goes for non-consensual buggery of a man.
In short, the subject of new clauses 71 and 93 is too big and sensitive to embark on during the Report stage of a Bill which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary pointed out during the debate on the age of consent, is not a sexual offences Bill, but a criminal justice Bill.
1 am
I accept that there is an anomaly in the maximum sentences that are available. If there were to be a future sexual offences Bill, where these and other matters could be carefully considered—there would be knock-on

consequences if we were to do what the hon. Lady suggested, for example, on the problem of attempted buggery—the Government would be sympathetic in looking to iron out those anomalies and may increase the penalties.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said, but this Bill is not the vehicle in which to attempt to change such a large subject. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her new clause tonight.

Mr. Gerrard: New clause 78, which is grouped with new clause 71, stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and myself and deals with a simple issue. The purpose of the new clause is to bring into the law the offence of marital rape. It might be thought that that is not necessary in view of the ruling of October 1991 in another place that sex without a woman's consent is rape irrespective of the relationship between the attacker and the woman. I point out that, in January 1992, the Law Commission, as a main recommendation, said that legislation should confirm the law and that the husband who raped his wife could be prosecuted just like anyone else. Although it could be argued that the law is now clear as a result of the 1991 judgment, the Law Commission clearly believed that a change was needed to remove any element that could suggest a marital exemption.
The Government have stated a commitment to tackling the issue. I shall quote briefly from a letter from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton on precisely this issue. It reads:
We welcomed the … ruling in 1991 on rape in marriage. It is right that a woman should not be denied the protection of the criminal law simply because she is married to the assailant. The Government has pledged to enshrine the rape in marriage recommendation in statute when a convenient opportunity arises".
I believe that this is a convenient opportunity. I hope that the Minister will not repeat the argument that he has just used in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). The Bill covers a huge range of topics. If the Government wish to make changes in the law in that respect, it is not satisfactory to say that we must wait for another Bill. The Bill is here now. It is wide enough already. These changes, which the Government said that they accept, could be included. I hope that the Minister will think again and, at the very least, say that if he cannot agree to the new clauses tonight, he will consider what can be done when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I am disappointed at the response of my hon. Friend the Minister on new clause 71. It deals with an anomaly and an injustice which enable an odious crime to persist all too readily and which means that, if offenders are caught and found guilty, they are punished too lightly.
As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said, there is currently no such offence as male rape, or the rape of males. The charge in such cases is buggery without consent or indecent assault. Buggery without consent carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years compared with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the rape of a woman.
Why is this important? Why is new clause 71 needed? It is needed because the present situation is plainly inequitable. By attaching a smaller maximum penalty to buggery without consent, we imply that, even if we do not condone it, we take a more indulgent view of it. All the


evidence shows that male victims of rape experience a trauma that should be understood as comparable to that suffered by female victims. In both cases, the suffering can be expected to be terrible and long lasting. That is certainly what the Royal College of Nursing tells us and what any of us can readily imagine.
Writing in the British Medical Journal of 15 December 1990, Dr. Michael King said:
The rape trauma syndrome, in which phobic anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and behavioural changes. follow from am assault, occurs in both men and women".
Because male rape is not recognised as a crime, it is often not reported, or, if it is, is reported only a long time after the event. That means that the victim does not receive support and care. The Kafkaesque effect of the offence not being recognised is that the victim, as one victim put it, feels isolated, unrecognised by society and without a context in which to understand his experience.
Suzanne Adler's research shows that the reasons for not reporting male rape are similar to those for not reporting female rape. They include shock, embarrassment, fear, blame and a high degree of stigma. The establishment of a crime of male rape, as proposed in new clause 71, would make it more likely that the needs of male victims of sexual assault would be constructively considered through the provision of counselling and other support.
In today's climate of greater openness and willingness to discuss matters such as rape and child abuse, the dimensions of the problem of male rape, while remaining far from clear, are becoming more apparent. Reports to the police of crimes of buggery without consent and indecent assault rose sharply between 1984 and 1989. Offences of buggery are recorded as increasing by 90 per cent. in that period and offences of indecent assault by 24 per cent. Dr. Gillian Mezey of St. George's hospital in London believes, however, that the figures are
the tip of an iceberg".
By 1992, the admirable charity Survivors, to which the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green referred, was receiving 800 calls a year during its twice-weekly two-hour helpline.
Let us be clear about the fact that male rape is not, as public prejudice may suppose, typically a feature of omosexual activity. First, Home Office figures show that 85 per cent. of victims of indecent assault were under 15 years of age. Secondly, research published in 1990 in the British Journal of General Practice found that in 72 per cent. of the cases studied the assailant was perceived as having a heterosexual orientation. As in 72 per cent. of cases the assailant was also personally known to the victim, there is no reason not to accept that the estimate is fairly accurate.
The point is that male and female rape is not primarily about sex but about power and its abuse. Rape is violence in which sex is the weapon. Mr. Ernest Woollett of Survivors, who was cited by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, reports that of those calling the helpline in 1993—the hon. Lady dealt with the 1994 statistics—44 per cent. had been under 10 at the time of the first assault and a further 22 per cent. were aged 11 to 15. Thirty per cent. of the alleged abusers were members of the victim's family and 13 per cent. of abusers were women. Where the information was obtained, in 45 per cent. of cases the sexual orientation of the victim was heterosexual and in 47 per cent. gay.
We are talking about an evil and an injustice on which we should act. We would not be alone in doing so: in Germany, the Netherlands and Canada, as well as in the majority of the states in the United States of America, rape is a non gender-specific offence. Expert legal opinion in Britain favours reform in this sphere, as the hon. Member for Homsey and Wood Green said. In 1984—

Mr. Pike: Do not the statistics that the hon. Gentleman has just given show that it would be totally wrong for the Minister to say that we should wait for a sexual offences Bill to come before the House before we take action to protect the type of people that the new clause seeks to protect?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman makes that point because it is very much the one to which I was coming. First, I wanted to stress that expert legal opinion favours reform in the area. In 1984, the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended increasing the penalty for buggery without consent. In 1992, in Doncaster Crown court, Mr. Justice Crabtree said:
When it comes to punishment I do not see that it makes any difference whether it was a man or a woman who has been violated and degraded.
It will not do for us simply to wait for some putative sexual offences Bill which may receive parliamentary time at some uncertain and possibly distant date. We are dealing with a crime and with suffering of which there is evidence that the incidence is mounting. The new clause provides a vehicle which would enable us to act to address the problem. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister has felt unable to offer any hope that in the later stages of the passage of the Bill the Government will look again constructively at the problem, but I hope that he may reconsider the position at this inconvenient hour. I hope that, after all, the Government will be prepared to bring forward a new clause of their own in another place to address an urgent and important evil.

Ms Mildred Gordon: The Minister has said that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is not the place to accept new clauses on sexual offences. On the contrary, I believe that it is a good opportunity to amend the law. New clause 93 concerns the definition of rape. Until now, legislation has excluded many horrific assaults which are technically not rape, but which are experienced as rape by the victims. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 defines in statute the offence of rape as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who did not consent.
The first point of new clause 93 is about rape in marriage, where legislation is long overdue. Secondly, it would extend the definition of rape to cover rape attacks on men and boys and, thirdly, it includes as rape non-consensual buggery and some of the offences which are now known as indecent assault which carry a lesser penalty.
The effect of the word "unlawful" in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act was to make husbands immune from the charge of raping their wives. The implication of it was that some rape, such as that within marriage, was lawful and many husbands took that right. Even those who did not take that right knew that they had it.


As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said, in March 1991, after years of protest by women and women's organisations, the Appeal Court declared:
a rapist remains a rapist subject to the criminal law irrespective of any relationship
In 1991, the Law Lords said:
in modern times the supposed marital exception in rape forms no part of the law of England.
That decision is being appealed against in the European Court and therefore it is vital that Parliament, which has never taken a stand in supporting the right of wives to say no to their husbands, takes a stand now.
Parliament has done nothing, despite the fact that a Women Against Rape survey showed that rape in marriage is the most common rape of all and that one in seven married women have been raped by their husbands. In considering what the Law Lords have done, the Law Commission has said that rape in marriage should be made a crime on exactly the same basis as any other rape and that that should be achieved by deleting from the 1976 Act the word "unlawful". By adopting new clause 93, I believe that Parliament should delete that word today.
On the basis of my case work, I feel strongly that Parliament should ensure that immigrant wives are no longer forced to submit to rape as a condition of their right to stay in Britain. I have known of several women who have fled brutal rapist husbands and then been faced with deportation orders because they were no longer living with the rapist. That must be put right. Women should be given legal help to fight their cases and financial help to enable them to escape from rapist husbands.
As it is so late in the day I shall try to be as brief as possible. But I must say that it is absurd that in 1994 British law still does not recognise the rape of men and boys. It is clear that the distinction between buggery that is really consensual anal sex and buggery that is really rape must be clarified in law. That legal distinction is long overdue, both for women and for men. Consensual sex of whatever nature is not the business of the law, but it is the law's job to protect women, men and children from anal rape.
1.15 am
Men and boys, like women and girls, are raped by strangers, by members of their families, by their partners in gay relationships, by casual acquaintances or dates, and, especially when they are young, by men in positions of power and authority over them. Male rape is especially common in prison. It is time that the law addressed that problem, which could easily be done by changing the word in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act from "she" to "person".
My last argument is that the law must cover other forms of rape. The present definition of rape is confined to what is commonly known as "sexual intercourse". That definition artificially excludes many assaults that women experience and suffer as rape, such as forced oral or anal intercourse. Unfortunately, many children are sexually abused by means of forced oral intercourse.
Also excluded is the use of objects such as bottles, broom handles, knives and men's hands. There was a famous case involving a Queen's guardsman, Thomas Holdsworth, who was freed by the court on the grounds that a gaol sentence would ruin his Army career. In legal terms he had not raped the woman involved, although he had used his fist, full of rings, which tore her internally.
The distinction made by the law and by many men between penile penetration and other sexual assault has nothing to do with the trauma that women suffer, or with women's perceptions. As the law stands, extremely violent and serious assaults are categorised only as indecent assault, and thus receive a far lesser penalty. The maximum sentence for indecent assault is 10 years, whereas for rape the maximum is life. The new criminal compensation scheme gives compensation of £3,000 for indecent assault, but gives £7,500 for rape.
The present legal definition of the offence of rape is outdated and indefensible and creates gross miscarriages of justice. There can be no excuse for Parliament's perpetuating that situation for one more day.

Mrs. Roche: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I welcome the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon). I am pleased that the new clause has had all-party support and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on his excellent speech highlighting rape trauma syndrome.
Although I welcome the Minister's expression of the Government's sympathy over the discrepancy, I am disappointed that in such a wide-ranging Bill time could not have been found to deal with that area of the law. I hope that as the Bill makes progress, perhaps in another place, it may be possible to give the issue further consideration and to deal with it. But in view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Bill to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

School Transport

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I present a petition from 400 residents and parents of students at Bradfield school and other schools in the area about dangerous overcrowding on school transport.
The petition reads:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House in the interests of safety enact a change in the law regarding the transportation of school children by bus or coach so that school children may no longer be carried three to a seat. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Iraq and Libya (Sanctions)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—0[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the last occasion that I raised the issue of sanctions against Iraq and Libya, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was present. I am sure that it is the wish of hon. Members who are here to extend deepest sympathy to his wife Ann and a feeling of considerable pain and loss on the death of Bob Cryer.
As I told the Prime Minister when, most courteously, he saw me in his room in the House of Commons on Thursday 3 March; as I told the Foreign Secretary when he most courteously saw me in his room in the House on the first parliamentary day after I returned from Baghdad in May 1993; and as I twice explained to Sir Michael Burton when, most courteously, he saw me first in June 1993 and again with Riad El Taher last month, I was indelibly appalled to see the lines of infants in the children's hospital in Baghdad and at the Um Kasr hospital on the Kuwait border, some of whom were expiring in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and myself.
This summer, unless something is done, the human tragedy is likely to be compounded. That something is the supply of the pharmaceuticals on the list that I handed to the Prime Minister, and the supply of water filters and water pump equipment to process the disease-ridden waters of the Tigris river, supplying the staff of life to a city of 4 million people.
Where there were three pumps in happier times, despite Iraqi technical ingenuity, there is now probably one. If a few pumps seize up in sweltering May, June, July and August, water-borne disease will be rife.
In so far as policy is dictated by the alleged persecution of the Shia and the so-called marsh Arabs, I believe that Her Majesty's Government are plain wrong.
There are more Shia than Sunni in the city of Baghdad. I saw the breathtaking shrine at Kerbala being skilfully rebuilt by specific order of Saddam Hussein, who went there soon after the western bombing.
The supposed evidence of burning marsh Arab villages that was shown to me in the India room of the Foreign Office by Ministry of Defence officials on 23 March., as a result of the courteous initiative by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), seems to be worthless. Those who briefed me simply did not know that reed huts are regularly burnt for reasons of sanitation, and have been burnt at intervals for 5,000 years for the same reasons of hygiene.
I recommend the article in Middle East International entitled "Letter from Qurna" by Tim Llewellyn, the veteran middle east correspondent of the BBC, who accompanied me on my visit to Iraq in 1993. Knowing that this debate would start late at night, I gave a copy to the Foreign Office first thing in the morning, which I hope the Minister received from his office. I quote that article:
Strangely, all seems calm, everyone seems happy. It is true the cheerleaders are from the Ba'th party, but that musky aura of death and fear is not in the air. Dare I say it, these Madan actually like being modernised. A burgeoning drainage and irrigation scheme has brought a man-made river sweeping south east, canals shooting off from it, other similar projects under way or planned. The Marsh Arabs can still live near the water, but out of it now,

with electricity, clinics, financial help, government food rations and clean water to drink, the land washed clear of salt and reclaimed for wheat, barley and rice.
They keep their reeds, their hunting, their water buffalo and way of life, and—yes—it has to be said, they are more manageably arranged for Saddam's supervision. Progress disciplines everyone.
This phenomenal water endeavour is not new. The Marshes' drainage was planned in the 1950s, started in the 1970s and written about with tentative approval by Gavin Young, Thesiger's protege, in 1976. It is quite ludicrous to suppose that such a complex project has been designed simply to exterminate an ancient people.
It is against this background that I ask the Government yet again what on earth they intend to do, in this sweltering summer, about a terrible human situation and implore them to think again about whether sanctions should not be lifted.
Turning to Libyan sanctions, I am driven to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government simply do not want either to find or to stumble on the truth of the Lockerbie crime. The truth, if it were established, would be altogether too awkward, too inconvenient, too embarrassing to Britain and the United States. I have been ever more curious about Lockerbie since those last days of December 1988, when a constituent friend and police officer told me that it was extraordinary how Americans, swarming round the wreckage, were interfering with evidence within hours of the crash.
Extraordinary, too, was the fact that the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Sir P. Channon), whom I have known in the House since he was the late Rab Butler's Parliamentary Private Secretary, appeared so confident that he knew what had been done, and who had done it, that he was prepared to say as much about the case to selected journalists in January 1989.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is in the Chamber. I should like to put on record my belief that his efforts in relation to Libya have been totally sincere, were undertaken in good faith and would have represented the best chance of resolving the problem had he received from a number of authorities in Britain the backing that he deserved. I applaud his efforts.
Extraordinary, too, is the fact that, in more than 800 pages of memoirs, Lady Thatcher should. not so much as mention Lockerbie once. But, of course, the fact is that two American Presidents asked Downing street to keep a low profile on Lockerbie. Lady Thatcher does refer to the 1986 bombing of Libya, and she seeks to justify it on the grounds that Libya could no longer back terrorists:
The 'much-vaunted' Libyan Counter-Attack did not, and could not, take place.
She, of all people in the western world, must have known what intelligence was saying about Lockerbie, and her memoirs cannot be squared with information that blames Libya.
Like the Maltese Government, the Maltese police, Air Malta, the Luqa airport authorities and, indeed, Dr. John Buon Tempo, the former Maltese ambassador to the Arab states, whose mediation efforts are, I hope, being taken seriously by the Foreign Office, I do not believe that a bomb was posted—yes, posted—in Malta to go through the Rhein-Main airport and Heathrow without detection. Nor—bluntly—do I, as the longest-serving Scottish Member of Parliament, with a history of respect for the office of Lord Advocate, believe that the Crown Office has the evidence that it claims to have and pleads that, for legal reasons, it cannot produce.
It was partly that raisons d'etat dictated that with a Gulf war situation looming, it was necessary not to place blame on Syria or Iran and that Libya was a convenient, smaller scapegoat. It was partly to do with some vociferous American relatives of the victims, and their lawyers, led by Lee Kreindler, in order to get their money, and to prove negligence by Pan Am and fix responsibility on Pan Am insurers—a case that depends on the bomb being posted in Malta, as does Vincent Cannistraro's venomous attack on Lestor Coleman and Don Goddard, whom I do not regard as con men and who ought to be taken seriously and ought to be seen by the Scottish police. It was, above all, because of the sheer embarrassment factor for George Bush that the United States Government warned its officials and cancelled places on Pan Am flight 103, while allowing kids, like Flora Swire and the students of Rochester New York, to travel.
If the Minister is angry with me for saying this, he might explain why Mr. Colin McEarchan QC for the Board of Trade at the fatal accident inquiry referred to the existence of public interest immunity certificates in relation to Lockerbie. Though the Minister has no ministerial responsibility, may I be forgiven for curiosity as to why the Department of Defence in Washington took the highly unusual step of claiming state privilege exempting certain documents from perusal by the lawyers of Pan Am insurers.
Just what negotiations have taken place between the State Department and the Foreign Office? Bluntly, I believe that there has been a major conspiracy in Washington and London to obscure the course of justice. I beg the Minister at least to support the suggestion being put by distinguished Scottish lawyers to the Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Boutros Galli, that a UN tribunal be convened to try the Libyan suspects.
Let me say to the Lord Advocate who, I understand, is on a jurisdictional Scottish legal high horse, that if there were a trial at The Hague of the suspects, the Libyan Government have agreed that it would presided over by Scottish judges, held according to Scottish law and adopting Scottish court proceedings. What the Libyan suspects must do must be up to them and their legal advisers, because a distinction must be made between the suspects and the Libyan Government.
Is the Foreign Office at all attracted—as I am—by the suggestion of Lord Macauley that the Lockerbie incident, which involved 16 nationalities, should be regarded as a crime against the international community, and that serious attempts ought to made at an international level to find an international forum acceptable to a multiplicity of countries?
Sooner rather than later, sanctions against the Libyan people must be lifted. I may have gabbled this, but there is a very great deal more which could be said. I await the Foreign Office reply with interest in the knowledge that it had 16 hours—possibly not enough time—to consider these extremely serious issues.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman knows well that I disagree with a great deal of what he has said,

but he has always shown a deep and continuing interest in the issues and I congratulate him on the fact that he has found yet another opportunity in which to raise them.
I thank the hon. Gentleman also for the fact that he sent my office a copy of his speech, and that has given me the opportunity to reflect on what he proposed to say. It would be helpful if I began by reminding the House of the circumstances in which sanctions were first imposed on Iraq.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, the international community had no choice but to take resolute action. The action that was first taken comprised United Nations Security Council resolution 661, which imposed comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq, and those were imposed on 6 August 1990.
At that time, there was an exception to those sanctions for strictly medical products. Subsequently, UNSC resolution 687 was passed on 3 April 1991 which laid down requirements that Iraq had to meet in full before sanctions could be lifted. Those requirements have not been met.
Just as it was Saddam Hussein who first caused sanctions to be imposed on Iraq, it is Saddam who is responsible for their remaining in place. However, from the very beginning the UN Security Council has been conscious of the effect of the sanctions on the ordinary people of Iraq. Just as many medicines were also exempt when resolution 687 was passed, the Security Council permitted shipments of foodstuffs and humanitarian goods.
The present position is that food and medicines are still exempt from sanctions, and humanitarian goods are permitted subject to approval by the UN sanctions committee. The role of that committee is to monitor the implementation of the embargo and to act as a point of reference in interpreting humanitarian and essential needs. The sanctions committee considers all applications to ship humanitarian goods to Iraq on a case-by-case basis. Our view is that basic human requirements such as clothing, toiletries, clean water, sanitation, shelter and agriculture fall within that definition and should be met.
We do our best to ensure that humanitarian goods are available to people who need them, but, at the same time, we have to ensure, first, that there is a genuine need and, secondly, that the goods are not diverted or exploited by the regime. For that reason, export licence applications should be supported by a United Nations agency report and each case is judged on its merits.
I accept that the process is sometimes slow, owing to the volume of applications received; however, we think that it is necessary to maintain a careful scrutiny of the applications.
It has not been our intention to punish innocent Iraqi civilians for Saddam's crimes. We take the view that the responsibility for the hardship and suffering of the Iraqi people lies not with the international community but with Saddam Hussein.
One of the problems is that we are unable to make our own assessments of humanitarian needs, as we are repeatedly denied access to many parts of Iraq. However, we receive reports from various sources about the humanitarian situation. We do not underestimate the effect that sanctions are having on the ordinary people of Iraq and, for that reason, the British Government alone have given about £66 million in aid since April 1991.
I regret to say that the regime in Iraq does not make life easy for the agencies involved there. In some cases, they


are simply denied access. In others, they are unable to operate on the terms offered to them by the Iraqis. For example, the World Health Organisation spent months wrangling with the Iraqi authorities over the distribution of essential medical supplies. Aid workers in northern Iraq are under constant threat. There are reports that the Government in Baghdad have offered a reward of $10,000 for the assassination of foreigners on Iraqi soil.
Since 12 March, there have been six security incidents, including two deaths in northern Iraq. Some of the attacks have been deliberately aimed at United Nations guards. So Saddam's regime, which caused the sanctions to be imposed in the first place, has consistently frustrated the international community's attempts to alleviate the suffering of the ordinary people of Iraq.
It is not surprising that Saddam does nothing to alleviate the suffering of his people. In October last year, the Iraqi Government decided not to continue negotiations on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 706 and 712, which were devised to bring relief to Iraqi civilians. Under those provisions, Iraq would have been able to sell up to $1.6 billion worth of oil during a period of six months. The proceeds would have gone into a United Nations escrow account. Some would have been set aside to cover compensation claims arising from the invasion of Kuwait. The rest—an estimated $933.7 million—would have been used for UN operations in Iraq, especially for the provision of food medicines and humanitarian supplies.
Saddam has also been engaged for many years in a sustained campaign of oppression against his own people. In 1991, the humanitarian situation in northern Iraq was so serious that the Security Council adopted resolution 688, which demanded an end to the brutal repression of the civilian population throughout Iraq and insisted that it allow access by humanitarian organisations to all those in need.
In his interim report of 18 November 1993, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Mr. Van Der Stoel, confirmed that the Iraqi Government were continuing their policy of repression. The internal blockade against the Kurds was still in place and the electricity supply was still turned off. The arbitrary killing of civilians had become part of daily life. Iraq denies the findings of Mr. Van Der Stoel, but has refused repeatedly to allow human rights monitors to be stationed in Iraq. If Iraq has nothing to hide, it should allow access to impartial observers.
The Shia in the southern marshes have also become a target of vicious oppression. The southern no-fly zone has a deterrent effect, but it cannot solve all the problems. The marsh lands have been drained in some places and flooded in others, causing an ecological imbalance that deprives the marsh Arabs of their homes and agricultural lands.
Recent imagery—I know that the hon. Gentleman has seen some of the film—from aircraft deployed to monitor Iraqi compliance with UNSC resolution 688 shows that the rivers have dried up and the waters have been diverted away from the marshes. We also have evidence to suggest that Iraqi ground troops are systematically burning settlements. We do not believe that those things are the result of some agricultural project; nor do we regard them as having some innocent explanation. Saddam's track record makes it clear that he is engaged in a systematic campaign against the Shia in the marshes.
Our policy is clear. We are determined that Iraq should fulfil all its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions. We will continue to do what we can to help the

Kurds, the Shia and the others whom Saddam continues to repress. We will continue to do what we can to help the ordinary people of Iraq. But the maintenance of sanctions is in Saddam's hands, not ours, and I hope that when the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) next has occasion to travel to Baghdad he will make that position quite plain to those whom he meets. That is perhaps the greatest service that he can render to the people of Iraq.
I turn now, if I may, to the question of Libya. The Security Council imposed sanctions against Libya following that country's refusal to accede to the demands of the international community contained in UNSC resolution 731 which was adopted unanimously in January 1992. It called on the Libyan Government to provide a full and effective response to the requests by the United Kingdom, United States and French Governments to co-operate fully in establishing responsibility for the terrorist attacks against Pan Am flight 103 and UTA flight 772.
Our position, together with that of the French and United States Governments, has been that the Libyan Government must surrender the two Libyan officials accused of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing for trial in Scotland or the United States, satisfy the French judicial authorities over the bombing of UTA 772, pay appropriate compensation and demonstrate by concrete actions their renunciation of terrorism.
When the Libyan Government failed to respond satisfactorily to these demands, the Security Council adopted a mandatory resolution, 748, requiring the demands to be met and introducing, in April 1992, an arms embargo, a ban on air links and on certain aviation-related trade, and a reduction in Libyan diplomatic representation. Continuing Libyan refusal to comply with UNSC resolutions 731 and 748 led to the adoption on 11 November 1993 of resolution 883 which introduced, from 1 December 1993, further sanctions, including a ban on exports of certain oil-related equipment, tightening of the aviation embargo and a freeze on Libyan assets. Libya is allowed free access to the proceeds of sales of oil and agricultural products, provided the proceeds are placed in separate accounts.
The intention behind the sanctions is not to punish the Libyan people but to increase the pressure on the Libyan regime to comply with the earlier resolutions and, in particular, to obtain justice for the victims of the Lockerbie and UTA atrocities. To this end, the new resolution adopts a carefully balanced approach. Thus, in addition to the stick of further sanctions, there is also a carrot: if the Secretary-General reports to the Security Council that the Libyan Government have ensured the appearance of those charged with the Lockerbie bombing before the appropriate US or Scottish court and have satisfied the French judicial authorities with respect to the bombing of UTA 772, the Security Council will review the sanctions with a view to suspending them immediately.
We see the suspension of sanctions as a preliminary to their being lifted immediately Libya has complied fully with UNSC resolutions 731 and 748. This new element, which was not present in resolution 748, is designed to make it clear that sanctions are not intended to punish but to bring Libya to compliance, and no more than that. Responsibility for the continuance of sanctions therefore rests squarely with the Libyan regime. The Government have repeatedly stressed that they have no interest in maintaining sanctions for their own sake.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for being here so late at night, but I want to press him on two aspects of the matter. First, what is the objection to some kind of trial taking place under Scottish court rules and Scottish court procedures before Scottish judges at The Hague? This, as I understand it, is an offer from the Libyan Government in so far as they can say what will happen, because I am told by the legal advisers that one cannot equate the Libyan Government with the two suspects.
I ask the Minister this. Is it because, as I put it in my opening speech, it is the Lord Advocate rather on a Scottish legal high horse, of pure jurisdictional law—incidentally, he may be right in that and I am not challenging his integrity as a lawyer—but taking a very narrow, legal position, or is it the will of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Government that there should not be any type of change in the jurisdiction?
Secondly, on Iraq, is it understood how a whole generation will grow up simply hating us if these sanctions

go on? People do not ask whose fault it was; they ask who is imposing the sanctions here and now. As one with a deep interest in the Arab world, I am dismayed that this should go on and on, in a situation where a generation will grow up, rightly or wrongly, simply hating the west. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) wants to interrupt me or interrupt the Minister, but I very much welcome his presence, exactly because he has taken such an interest in Libya.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have permission?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of the Minister as well?

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Two o'clock